President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions attend a panel discussion in the Roosevelt Room of the White House March 29, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)
May 30, 2018
Adding to the "mountain of evidence" that President Donald Trump has obstructed justice and indicating that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe is continuing to expand, the New York Timesreported late Tuesday that Mueller is examining a meeting last March during which Trump ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from the FBI's Russia investigation.
After ranting to aides that "he needed a loyalist overseeing" the Russia probe, Trump told Sessions during dinner at Mar-a-Lago to walk back his decision to recuse himself from the investigation--a move that was required by Justice Department guidelines that "are in place to prevent the sort of political meddling the president tried to engage in," the Times notes.
Sessions ultimately refused Trump's demand.
The special counsel's reported interest Trump's meeting with the attorney general "demonstrates Mr. Sessions' overlooked role as a key witness in the investigation into whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct" the Russia investigation, the Times observed. "It also suggests that the obstruction investigation is broader than it is widely understood to be--encompassing not only the president's interactions with and firing of the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey."
Responding to the Times report on Tuesday, legal expert and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti argued in a series of tweets that Trump's "repeated attempts to push Sessions to reassert control over the Russia investigation" constitute "very strong evidence" that the president has obstructed justice.
\u201cTHREAD: Are the revelations in today's @nytimes article, including Trump's repeated attempts to push Sessions to reassert control over the Russia investigation, evidence of obstruction of justice? (Short answer: Very strong evidence.)\u201d— Renato Mariotti (@Renato Mariotti) 1527640923
\u201c9/ The hard part of proving obstruction of justice is proving the "corrupt" intent of the defendant. In other words, proving the person acted with the intent to unlawfully impede the investigation. Today's news adds to the mountain of evidence of Trump's intent to obstruct.\u201d— Renato Mariotti (@Renato Mariotti) 1527640923
"Given this bizarre timeline of behavior by Trump, it's hard to conclude that Trump doesn't want Sessions to improperly impede the Mueller investigation, which is strong evidence that Trump wanted to impede the investigation when he fired Comey," Mariotti concluded.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Adding to the "mountain of evidence" that President Donald Trump has obstructed justice and indicating that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe is continuing to expand, the New York Timesreported late Tuesday that Mueller is examining a meeting last March during which Trump ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from the FBI's Russia investigation.
After ranting to aides that "he needed a loyalist overseeing" the Russia probe, Trump told Sessions during dinner at Mar-a-Lago to walk back his decision to recuse himself from the investigation--a move that was required by Justice Department guidelines that "are in place to prevent the sort of political meddling the president tried to engage in," the Times notes.
Sessions ultimately refused Trump's demand.
The special counsel's reported interest Trump's meeting with the attorney general "demonstrates Mr. Sessions' overlooked role as a key witness in the investigation into whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct" the Russia investigation, the Times observed. "It also suggests that the obstruction investigation is broader than it is widely understood to be--encompassing not only the president's interactions with and firing of the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey."
Responding to the Times report on Tuesday, legal expert and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti argued in a series of tweets that Trump's "repeated attempts to push Sessions to reassert control over the Russia investigation" constitute "very strong evidence" that the president has obstructed justice.
\u201cTHREAD: Are the revelations in today's @nytimes article, including Trump's repeated attempts to push Sessions to reassert control over the Russia investigation, evidence of obstruction of justice? (Short answer: Very strong evidence.)\u201d— Renato Mariotti (@Renato Mariotti) 1527640923
\u201c9/ The hard part of proving obstruction of justice is proving the "corrupt" intent of the defendant. In other words, proving the person acted with the intent to unlawfully impede the investigation. Today's news adds to the mountain of evidence of Trump's intent to obstruct.\u201d— Renato Mariotti (@Renato Mariotti) 1527640923
"Given this bizarre timeline of behavior by Trump, it's hard to conclude that Trump doesn't want Sessions to improperly impede the Mueller investigation, which is strong evidence that Trump wanted to impede the investigation when he fired Comey," Mariotti concluded.
Adding to the "mountain of evidence" that President Donald Trump has obstructed justice and indicating that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe is continuing to expand, the New York Timesreported late Tuesday that Mueller is examining a meeting last March during which Trump ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from the FBI's Russia investigation.
After ranting to aides that "he needed a loyalist overseeing" the Russia probe, Trump told Sessions during dinner at Mar-a-Lago to walk back his decision to recuse himself from the investigation--a move that was required by Justice Department guidelines that "are in place to prevent the sort of political meddling the president tried to engage in," the Times notes.
Sessions ultimately refused Trump's demand.
The special counsel's reported interest Trump's meeting with the attorney general "demonstrates Mr. Sessions' overlooked role as a key witness in the investigation into whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct" the Russia investigation, the Times observed. "It also suggests that the obstruction investigation is broader than it is widely understood to be--encompassing not only the president's interactions with and firing of the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey."
Responding to the Times report on Tuesday, legal expert and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti argued in a series of tweets that Trump's "repeated attempts to push Sessions to reassert control over the Russia investigation" constitute "very strong evidence" that the president has obstructed justice.
\u201cTHREAD: Are the revelations in today's @nytimes article, including Trump's repeated attempts to push Sessions to reassert control over the Russia investigation, evidence of obstruction of justice? (Short answer: Very strong evidence.)\u201d— Renato Mariotti (@Renato Mariotti) 1527640923
\u201c9/ The hard part of proving obstruction of justice is proving the "corrupt" intent of the defendant. In other words, proving the person acted with the intent to unlawfully impede the investigation. Today's news adds to the mountain of evidence of Trump's intent to obstruct.\u201d— Renato Mariotti (@Renato Mariotti) 1527640923
"Given this bizarre timeline of behavior by Trump, it's hard to conclude that Trump doesn't want Sessions to improperly impede the Mueller investigation, which is strong evidence that Trump wanted to impede the investigation when he fired Comey," Mariotti concluded.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.