PROSECUTORS: DIFFICULT TO PROVE OBSTRUCTION
Lawmakers looking to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice for firing FBI boss James B. Comey have to meet a high burden of proof — one that’s unlikely to be reached without hard evidence, former prosecutors say.
“It smells funny and you think there’s something wrong there that you want to put your finger on, but you can’t, because it doesn’t fall within the four corners of what you have to operate with,” said David Weinstein, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney. “The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that’s a high standard unless you have that smoking gun.”
Trump abruptly fired Comey on Tuesday, citing disappointment with his performance. But the ax fell while the FBI director was overseeing an investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Democrats and some Republicans have backed appointing a special prosecutor to investigate that possible collusion, and Trump has been rocked by accusations that he was motivated by the Russia investigation to push out the controversial FBI director.
“He fired (Comey) obviously as an attempt to interfere in this investigation into collusion with the Russians, and they keep changing the story,” U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., told MSNBC yesterday.
Trump’s canning of Comey has been compared to President Richard Nixon’s firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was investigating Watergate — and obstruction of justice was a charge levied in the articles to impeach Nixon for his attempt to cover up the scandal. He ultimately resigned in disgrace.
But as president, Trump has the authority to fire the FBI director at will, Weinstein said, and disproving Trump’s stated reasons for the dismissal would require proof that he “corruptly took action” — specific statements that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.
But, Weinstein added, Trump has a history of taking quick action that backs up his reasoning.
“It’s one thing for us to say he’s obstructing, it’s another thing to say he’s playing ‘The Apprentice’ and moving without thinking. ‘I don’t like the job that he’s doing and you’re fired,’ ” Weinstein said. “That’s not a corrupt, improper response, he’s not improper but impulsive.”
Former prosecutor Timothy M. Burke of Needham agreed that speculation over Trump’s motives don’t add up to evidence, even though Comey’s pink slip came just as reports surfaced he was seeking more resources to pursue the Russia investigation.
“What people think and what can be proven obviously are at times light years apart,” Burke said, adding it would have to be shown that the FBI had evidence of corruption, that Trump knew about it, and that he acted to fire Comey on that knowledge. “State of mind and intent are very difficult, at times, to prove.”