Obstruction deconstructed
When the time comes, special counsel Robert Mueller might not put it quite the way I am about to put it.
It’s that President Donald Trump attempted and failed to obstruct an investigation that was going nowhere, at least regarding him, until he tried to obstruct it.
Likewise, the so-called Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton went nowhere for years until Clinton obliged it by having sex with an intern and trying to keep the news quiet.
The maxim arising from Watergate was “it’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.” In the Trump-Russia affair, it could be “it’s the attempted cover-up even if there really wasn’t a crime to cover up.”
—————— I suspect Mueller’s investigation will find that Trump did not criminally collude with Russians. I refer to the president personally, not to any of those dubious-seeming former or current associates of the candidate and then president.
Mueller will find instead, I figure, that Trump was beset by a naïve Mad Men-era man-crush on the Russians, which his egomania and stubbornly lazy lack of study prevented him from suppressing or rethinking.
Mueller will probably find that, when Trump told the Russians our intelligence secret and that he thought fired FBI director James Comey was a “nut job” pestering their shared machismo, he wasn’t conspiring to help them but only endeavoring to impress them.
Mueller will probably find that Trump loves the tough he-man style of Vladimir Putin’s government, desires a similar tough he-man style of American government and believes that ISIS wouldn’t stand a chance against a dream-team of their blended manliness.
Mueller’s tougher conclusion may turn out to be what if anything to do about the crime it seems Trump has already committed—ignorantly, naïvely, even kind of innocently. I refer to textbook obstruction of justice.
Just because an investigation of you is known or believed by you to be silly gives you no authority to try to stop it. And trying to obstruct even a bogus investigation is as serious under the federal statute as actually obstructing a legitimate one.
Rule of thumb: If the FBI has opened a criminal investigation, do not take aside an FBI official working on that investigation and chat him up about the case. It’ll get you memorialized in a contemporaneous memorandum. That advice applies especially to a president, who can fire the FBI boss.
Trump’s transgression occurred at the world’s most dangerous intersection. That’s the one where arrogance and ignorance often collide.
If the sources of the Washington Post and New York Times are correct—as they seem in the absence of direct White House denial to be, though confirming documents haven’t yet been seen—then Trump could already be charged with obstruction of justice. That’s because he:
Asked Comey if he could see his way clear to call off an investigation of Mike Flynn, the general who had resigned the day before as Trump’s national security adviser under the pressure of his own false statements.
Then, three months later, with the investigation proceeding, fired Comey.
Then, the next day, told visiting Russians that the pressure of the Russian investigation would now be eased.
That’s the one-two-three of obstruction of justice. First you try to get an investigation ended. Then you fire the head of the FBI after he doesn’t end it. Then you tell the Russians you are relieved he is gone.
Trump’s intent was most likely naïve. He was probably oblivious to its inappropriateness. Those are not excuses under the law.
Accepting legal and political advice beforehand would have offended Trump’s ego disorder.
It is quite possible—indeed probable—that Trump wanted to protect Flynn because he felt guilty about insisting that Flynn become his national security adviser. Flynn, surely aware that he would be trouble because of his foreign-agent work, hadn’t wanted to do it.
Again, Trump’s weakness was for a man’s man, this general who hated Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
It is entirely possible—indeed probable—that Trump, by what he said to the Russians, did not mean that they would all now go scot-free in their criminal collusion. It is more likely Trump meant that, with Comey off their backs, they could proceed to apply their man-crushes toward forging an alliance to rid the world of terrorists.
The problems are that the Russians are bad guys, too, and that buddying up to a sinister adversarial nation that meddled in our election in your behalf is a betrayal of America’s sovereign and noble principles and institutions. It’s also spectacularly stupid. But it’s not the specific crime in play.
Here’s how an honest and accurate count of impeachment might read: Being megalomaniacally and narcissistically oblivious to obstruction of justice when blithely committing it.