- We are a Country that is defined by our Laws.
Volume 2 of the Mueller Report sets up the Impeachment case against Donald Trump , citing instances of Obstruction of Justice. The only appropriate Legal Body to investigate the conduct and intent of The President of the United State s , is Congress. Further, in order to obtain speedily an unredacted copy of the Mueller Report, requires Congress to act on behalf of the American People and initiate Impeachment Proceedings, based on the statutes conforming to Obstruction of Justice.
- The Mueller Report lays out the entire Obstruction of Justice case according to his legal finding and has determined that only Congress has the Power to investigate the Conduct and Intent of President Trump.
- On separate pages, I will provide all the notes I’ve made while reading Volumes 1 and 2.
- The Appendix, lettered A-D, lays out the additional framework for Impeachment and provides, in Appendix C, a list of questions the Special Counsel asked, and were left unanswered fully by, the President. However, by reading the testimony of others interviewed in this case, it is apparent, that the President has provided answers to the questions asked, through third Party testimony.
- Additionally, Appendix B, provides a thorough listing of all individuals, Russian and American, plus their organizational affiliations , interviewed by The Special Counsel. Approximately, 140 individuals were interviewed and investigated.
- Appendix D almost entirely redacted, cites the Special Counsel’s cases brought to court closed or pending. In a section of this Appendix, it is noted that 12 individuals, thought to have committed a criminal act, outside the scope of the General Counsel, their cases have been referred to other appropriate law Enforcement bodies or the FBI. Those names are 100% redacted.
- It is interesting to note, that Congress has the ability to question the Special Counsel and the FBI, known as lesser officers of the Court, to aid in Congressional findings.
It is my opinion, upon reading the Mueller Report in its entirety that,We the People have been harmed, our very survival depends on the President, his Cabinet and co conspirators being removed from office, before they cause further weakening of our Democracy.
The case for Obstruction of Justice is Legally explained by the Special Counsel. He discusses the incidents leading up to Obstruction of Justice and the President, his subordinates and his family’s conduct and intent in supporting Obstruction of Justice.
- The definition of Obstruction of Justice states, is Motivated by a desire to protect non criminal personal interests, to protect against Investigations where the underlying criminal liability falls into a grey area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. The Investigation concluded that Trumps personal conduct called into question the legitimacy of Mueller’s Investigation and continues to do so because Trump fears that the legitimacy of his Election is questioned & has uncertainty about the impact of certain events where he had knowledge of their existence.
- The advance notice of Wikileaks, the release of hacked emails, the June 9 th meeting between senior campaign officials and the Russians can be seen as damaging or criminal activity by him, his campaign or his family.
- Many of the President’s acts before the Public to prevent witnesses from “flipping” or cooperating with the Special Council can be construed as Obstruction. Considering the President has access to Public Communications and can amplify his wishes and concerns, makes his behavior , if not criminal, obstructing. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter testimony, the justice system integrity is equally threatened.
The case for Obstruction of Justice is Legally explained by the Special Counsel. He discusses the incidents leading up to Obstruction of Justice and the President and his family’s conduct and intent in supporting Obstruction of Justice.
Legal defense of Obstruction of Justice: Mueller concludes that bringing Obstruction of Justice charges is proper, since the President used corrupt efforts to use his official powers to curtail, end or interfere with an investigation. Mueller recommends proceeding with Obstruction.
24. Mueller even tells us which Statutes to use. 18USC , 1512 (c) provides. Whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record , document or other document or attempts to do so , with the intent to impair the objects integrity or availability for use in a proceeding or Otherwise Obstructs , Influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned, not more than 20 yrs. or both.
This Law applies to all corrupt means of obstructing a proceeding, pending or contemplated. Including by the use of official power. Congress has specifically prohibited witness tampering. Trump has done that a number of times.
Action 1512(c)1 specifically includes the requirement that the defendant act with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. A requirement that Congress also included in 2 other sections of 1512(b)2(B) use of intimidation, threats, corrupt persuasion, or misleading conduct with intent to cause a person to destroy an object , with the intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding. There is a difference between intent and corrupt. To appear before Congress in an Obstruction of Justice case, the person does not need to have corrupt intent, he or she, merely has to intend to impair a proceeding.
Congress acted purposely when they looked at conduct, 1512(c)(2) addresses conduct specifically. Obstructing, influencing or impeding a proceeding. It is noted in Sections 1512(c)(1) vs 1513(c)(2) that Congress broadly looks at a persons conduct and intent and hold either interpretation of these Sections to be coequal when determining conduct. Destruction of physical evidence with intent to impair as well as conduct that intends to impair a proceeding. If you do both, that’s worse. But one or the other is appropriate for Congress to proceed.
Section 1512(c)(2) Courts look at Obstruction in any form. The President’s conduct personally took many forms. From personal insults to praise , to Social Media, to using surrogates to carry out his dirty work, to going to the newspapers that he calls enemies of the people, yet uses them for his lying campaigns or when he wants to subvert justice, he uses the printed press or TV, to get his message out.
It is my assumption that Section 1512(c)(2) can be used against Barr and Minuchin as well, since their conduct impedes , obstructs or Influences any official proceeding. 1513(c)(2) have been used in the courts and upheld convictions for conduct that thwarted investigations or arrests.
Whereas (c)(1) is used for conduct that impairs the availability or integrity of documents or records. The other basis for impeachment under Obstruction of Justice or high crimes and misdemeanors relates to tipping off the people being investigated and thereby hampering the Grand Jury process. Therefore, 1512(c)(2) refers to corrupt acts, including public officials, that threaten the Commencement or conduct of a proceeding and not just the acts that make evidence unavailable or impair the integrity of a proceeding.
These are grave and serious discoveries. I am not an attorney, yet, I understand that the President can be brought before Congress on serious charges of Obstruction of Justice and High Crimes & misdemeanors. When by his conduct he intended to hinder the ongoing investigation of the Special Council and additionally , by his continued Public Campaign, may have thwarted the cases brought before the Grand Jury by interfering directly in witness testimony. Very serious! P156-163.
The legal case to proceed with Obstruction of Justice in Congress , the investigation, which may lead to Impeachment. It is the People’s obligation and their right to demand Justice. Mueller continues to lay out his legal case on p163 directing us to 18 U.S.C. Section 1503 it generally prohibits conduct that interferes with the administration of Justice. Section 1512(c)(2) in Federal Obstruction of Justice Statutes captures corrupt conduct, other than document Obstruction, that has the natural tendency to obstruct contemplated as well as pending proceedings. This Law overlaps with Section 1503 which is pending grand jury and judicial proceedings & 1505 pending administrative & Congressional proceedings. In 1519, the Law states (The witness merely has to have the intent to obstruct Justice even if unsuccessful. Congress doesn’t need to prove a link between intent, conduct , as long as the Conduct was seen to be directed at skewing the official proceedings. When charging, Mueller recommends noting the overlap between 1503,1505 & 1519 , meaning that section 1512(c)(2) May be broadly interpreted.
- 28. Congress enacted Section 1512(c)(2) as part of the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002, under George W Bush. Tampering with a record or Otherwise impeding an official proceeding. 1512(c) was added by the Senate to close loopholes such as document shredding. Both houses of Congress memorialized the unambiguous statutory text. Therefore, both houses of Congress memorialized 1512(c)(2) prohibiting corruptly, obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding or attempting to do so. The Senate Committee explained that : the purpose of preventing an Obstruction or miscarriage of justice cannot be fully carried out by a simple enumeration of the Commonly prosecuted Obstruction offenses. There must also be protection against the rare type of conduct that is the product of the inventive criminal mind and which also thwarts justice. This was verbatim. It’s disingenuous for any branch of Government to call this investigation a witch hunt or partisan, since the Law was written and ratified by both houses of Congress in 2002. Which Party was in Control then? The GOP MAJORITY
- 29. The Supreme Court has deferred to Congress in defining crimes and giving fair warning of what a criminal statute prohibits. However, Congress’ interpretation supersedes all others because it assumes the person had the intent to obstruct justice in mind. Justice Scalia agreed with Congress and the interpretation “it denotes an act by an official that is inappropriate or inconsistent with official duty giving them the advantage and influences the rights of others. Paraphrase p166.
- 30. Other Obstruction might apply to the conduct in this investigation. Mueller has laid out his Case for Congress to act, because this case for Obstruction has merit!
Instances of Obstruction of Justice in Volume ll
- The Campaign Committee knew about Russian interference in our Elections and this was confirmed by individuals within the Trump organization and the FBI.
- Trump lied about his ongoing pursuit of the Moscow Tower with the potential to net him Billions with little risk.
- A Foreign power, Russia, contributed monetary assistance to his campaign. The fact that Trump denied these facts and publicly waged a campaign against The Special Counsel constitutes Obstruction of Justice.
- Trumps Tweets should be included in evidence as his attempt to disparage this investigation & their findings that Russia did interfere in US Elections violating the privacy of individuals connected to voter registration rolls and others not connected to the Trump Campaign.
- Individuals connected to the Trump Campaign separately told the President in March & April that Wikileaks had the emails Trump was looking for.
- This was no witch hunt nor is Russian interference in our Elections trivial. They most likely used the voter data for their targeted Social Media Campaign assisting Donald Trumps election.
- On 6/14/16 The DNC independently conducted an in house assessment of the DNC computers and found that they were hacked by the Russian Government. On 7/22/16 , Wikileaks dumped thousands of hacked DNC documents, timing their release for the beginning of the Democratic National Convention. The Trump Campaign and Trump himself were gleeful and encouraged Wikileaks to release more emails. Their exact words are redacted on p 17 under Section ll of the Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation.
- Trump and members of his campaign knew Wikileaks had the emails of Podesta & Clinton and were waiting for the proper timing of their release. Wkileaks assisted the campaign committee by providing encrypted codes for easy access to the emails.
- See you later and we’ll discuss!
- “The heart and pulse of “We the People””