Tag Archives: Obstruction of Justice

Mueller says he did not exonerate Trump, U.S. policy precluded charges

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Office of Special Counsel's investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., July 24, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By David Morgan and Jan Wolfe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday told a dramatic U.S. congressional hearing he had not exonerated President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice and indicated he would have sought his indictment were it not for a Justice Department policy against bringing charges against a sitting president.

Mueller, answering questions publicly for the first time on his inquiry, also defended the integrity of his investigation as he appeared for eagerly anticipated testimony at the first of two back-to-back televised congressional hearings that carry high stakes for Trump and Democrats who are split between impeaching him or moving on to the 2020 election.

(https://www.reuters.com/live/mueller-report)

The former FBI director, who spent 22 months investigating what he concluded was Russian interference in a “sweeping and systematic fashion” in the 2016 U.S. election to help Trump and the president’s conduct, appeared first before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

The committee’s Democratic chairman, Jerrold Nadler, praised Mueller and said no one, including Trump, is “above the law.”

But Trump’s Republican allies on the committee tried to paint Mueller’s investigation as unfair to the president, with Louie Gohmert heatedly telling him “you perpetuated injustice” and conservative congressman Guy Reschenthaler calling the manner in which the inquiry was conducted “un-American.”

Mueller’s 448-page report, released in redacted form on April 18, did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice in a series of actions aimed at impeding the inquiry, but did not exonerate him.

Democratic Representative Ted Lieu asked Mueller if the reason he did not bring a criminal indictment against Trump was the Justice Department’s longstanding policy crafted by its Office of Legal Counsel against bringing criminal charges against a sitting president.

“That is correct,” Mueller said.

Trump has claimed that the Mueller inquiry resulted in the president’s “complete and total exoneration.”

“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked Mueller.

“No,” Mueller replied.

Mueller’s then-spokesman Peter Carr and Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec issued a joint statement on May 29 saying that Attorney General William Barr had previously stated that Mueller “repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC (Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice.”

Asked at the hearing whether he stood by that May 29 statement, Mueller said, “I would have to look at it more closely.”

Mueller, accused by Trump of heading a “witch hunt” and trying to orchestrate a “coup” against the Republican president, said his inquiry was conducted in “a fair and independent manner” and that members of the special counsel’s team “were of the highest integrity.”

Trump has accused Mueller of having conflicts of interest, including saying Mueller wanted the president to appoint him as FBI director after firing James Comey. Mueller disputed Trump’s account, saying he had not sought the FBI job from Trump. Mueller noted that Justice Department ethics officials confirmed he had no such conflicts.

“Let me say one more thing,” Mueller said. “Over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere with our election is among the most serious.”

The interrogation of Mueller, a reluctant witness who appeared only after being subpoenaed, afforded an opportunity for Americans, who may not have pored over the lengthy and sometimes dense report, to hear his conclusions in a highly charged hearing scheduled by Democrats, with Trump running for re-election in 2020.

‘A LITTLE FAST’

Mueller, 74, was surrounded by news photographers as he took his place in the packed hearing room, showing little apparent emotion as he scanned the scene. Mueller faced a series of rapid-fire questions from lawmakers in both parties, several times asking them to repeat their questions and often referring them to the text of the report itself. Some Republicans interrupted Mueller as he was trying to answer questions.

“That went a little fast for me,” Mueller told Doug Collins, the committee’s top Republican, at one point.

Mueller avoided being drawn into arguments with Republicans who hammered away at his inquiry, often frustrating lawmakers with responses such as “I am not going to get into that.”

“And if I can finish,” Mueller told Republican Matt Gaetz after the congressman interrupted him.

In a comment sure to disappoint Republicans, Mueller said he would not answer questions about the origins of the Russia probe in the FBI before he was named to take over the inquiry in 2017 or about a controversial dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent. Republicans have tried to portray the investigation as a politically motivated attack on Trump cooked up by Democrats and various enemies.

Mueller was set to testify later in the day before the House Intelligence Committee. Democrats control the House, while Trump’s fellow Republicans control the Senate.

Democrats entered the hearings hoping his testimony would rally public support behind their own ongoing investigations of the president and his administration. Democrats are deeply divided over whether to launch the impeachment process set out in the U.S. Constitution for removing a president from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Mueller’s inquiry detailed numerous contacts between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia at a time when the Kremlin was interfering in the 2016 U.S. election with a scheme of hacking and propaganda to sow discord among Americans and boost Trump’s candidacy.

Mueller’s investigative report said the inquiry found insufficient evidence to establish that Trump and his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

‘NOT EXCULPATED’

Democrats focused on five actions by Trump that Mueller had investigated as potential obstruction of justice, including at one point telling his White House counsel to remove the special counsel.

“Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s efforts to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable,” Mueller testified.

Under questioning by Nadler, Mueller acknowledged that the report detailed “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.”

“Well, the finding indicates … that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told Nadler.

Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee, subsequently cleared the president of obstruction of justice after receiving Mueller’s report.

In his opening statement, Mueller reiterated that his team had decided not to make a determination on the question of obstruction. “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and remains our decision today,” Mueller said.

Nadler said in his opening statement that Mueller conducted the inquiry with “remarkable integrity” and was “subjected to repeated and grossly unfair personal attacks.”

“Although department policy barred you from indicting the president for this conduct, you made clear that he is not exonerated. Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes. And in this nation, not even the president is above the law,” Nadler said.

Republican congressman John Ratcliffe accused Mueller of exceeding his authority in the report’s extensive discussion of potential obstruction of justice by Trump after the special counsel made the decision not to draw a conclusion on whether Trump committed a crime. Ratcliffe agreed that Trump was not above the law, but said the president should not be “below the law” either.

Republican Collins said the facts of the Mueller report are that “Russia meddled in the 2016 election. The president did not conspire with Russians. Nothing we hear today will change those facts.”

“The president watched the public narrative surrounding the investigation assume his guilt while he knew the extent of his innocence,” Collins said. “The president’s attitude towards the investigation was understandably negative, yet the president did not use his authority to close the investigation.”

Republican Representative Steve Chabot said Wednesday’s hearing was the “last, best hope” by Democrats “to build up some sort of groundswell across America to impeach President Trump. That’s what this is really all about today.” Chabot also told Mueller some people thought his report was “a pretty one-sided attack on the president.”

Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner noted that Mueller’s report never referred to actions by Trump as potentially impeachable conduct.

Before the hearing, Trump complained on Twitter that Mueller had not investigated various of the president’s foes including 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and, referring to the former special counsel, “HIMSELF.” During the hearing, Trump posted a tweet that quoted a Fox News anchor as calling the hearing a “disaster” for Democrats and Mueller’s reputation.

Mueller’s investigation led to criminal charges against 34 people and three Russian entities. People who were convicted at trial or pleaded guilty included Trump’s former campaign chairman and other aides.

With a no-nonsense reputation, Mueller is a Marine Corps combat veteran from the Vietnam War who later served as a federal prosecutor and became the architect of the modern FBI after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Mueller served as FBI director from 2001 to 2013 under presidents in both parties.

(Reporting by David Morgan and Jan Wolfe; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Sarah N. Lynch, Makini Brice, Susan Cornwell, Richard Cowanl Patricia Zengerle; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Prosecutors portray Orlando gunman’s widow as a liar

Jose Louis Morales sits and prays under his brother Edward Sotomayor Jr.'s cross that is part of a makeshift memorial for the victims of the Pulse night club shootings in Orlando

By Joey Roulette

ORLANDO, Fla. (Reuters) – A federal prosecutor portrayed the widow of the Orlando nightclub gunman as a liar during closing arguments in her trial on Wednesday, saying she sought to mislead investigators probing the attack that killed 49 people in 2016.

Noor Salman, the widow of gunman Omar Mateen, initially lied to investigators in the 12 hours after the rampage at Pulse nightclub, but later admitted knowing her husband had left their home with a gun and had watched jihadist videos online, prosecutor Sara Sweeney told jurors.

“You’re going to have to find that Ms. Salman knowingly engaged in misleading conduct,” Sweeney said as the prosecution and defense began their final pitches to jurors.

Salman, 31, could face life in prison if convicted on charges of obstruction of justice and aiding Mateen in providing support to the Islamic State militant group.

“She does not have to be his equal in the attack” to show she helped her husband carry it out, Sweeney said in U.S. District Court in Orlando, Florida.

Sweeney also said the Disney Springs entertainment and shopping complex had been Mateen’s original target when he left home on the night of the June 12, 2016, massacre before ending up at Pulse.

Trial witnesses had hinted at the switch in targets, but Sweeney’s assertion on Wednesday was the first time prosecutors had acknowledged it.

Prosecutors allege Salman helped Mateen case possible attack sites and did nothing to stop the massacre at the gay nightspot. Mateen had claimed allegiance to a leader of Islamic State, and police killed him in an exchange of gunfire.

Prosecutors have argued that Salman first told investigators her husband acted without her knowledge but later said she knew he was watching Islamic State recruitment videos, had bought an assault-style rifle and had examined three possible sites for attack.

The only evidence from Salman’s initial interviews are handwritten statements because Federal Bureau of Investigation agents did not use video or audio recordings of the interrogation.

Defense lawyers contend Salman was a simple woman who loved children and that FBI investigators coerced her into confessing. Salman was at home with the couple’s then-3-year-old son during the attack and was unaware of Mateen’s plans, they have said.

The trial judge, Paul Byron, on Monday rejected a defense motion to dismiss the charges or declare a mistrial because the prosecution had failed to disclose Mateen’s father had been an FBI informant before the nightclub attack.

(Writing by Ian Simpson in Washington; editing by Colleen Jenkins and Jonathan Oatis)

Trump denies obstructing FBI probe, says has no tapes of talks with Comey

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage for a rally at the U.S. Cellular Center in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S. June 21, 2017. REUTERS/Scott Morgan

By Amanda Becker and Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he had not obstructed the FBI’s probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and had not recorded his conversations with former FBI chief James Comey.

Comey was leading the investigation into allegations Russia tried to sway the election toward Trump and the possibility Trump associates colluded with Moscow when the president fired him on May 9, sparking a political firestorm.

“Look there has been no obstruction, there has been no collusion,” Trump told Fox News Channel in an interview set to air on Friday. Fox released a partial transcript of the interview on Thursday.

The former head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified before a Senate committee that Trump had asked him to drop a probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s alleged ties to Russia.

Earlier on Thursday, Trump said he did not make and does not possess any tapes of his conversations with Comey, after suggesting last month he might have recordings that could undercut Comey’s description of events.

“I have no idea whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Lawmakers investigating allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election had asked the White House for any such recordings.

Shortly after dismissing Comey, Trump mentioned the possibility of tapes in a Twitter post.

“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Trump tweeted on May 12.

Allegations of ties to Russia have cast a shadow over Trump’s first five months in office, distracting from attempts by his fellow Republicans in Congress to overhaul the U.S. healthcare and tax systems.

Trump has privately told aides that the threat of the existence of tapes forced Comey to tell the truth in his recent testimony, a source familiar with the situation said.

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said Trump still had questions to answer about possible tapes.

“If the president had no tapes, why did he suggest otherwise? Did he seek to mislead the public? Was he trying to intimidate or silence James Comey? And if so, did he take other steps to discourage potential witnesses from speaking out?” Schiff said in a statement.

CNN reported on Thursday that two top U.S. intelligence officials told investigators Trump suggested they publicly deny any collusion between his campaign and Russia, but that they did not feel he had ordered them to do so.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers met separately last week with investigators for special counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to CNN.

The two officials said they were surprised at Trump’s suggestion and found their interactions with him odd and uncomfortable, but they did not act on the president’s requests, CNN reported, citing sources familiar with their accounts.

Reuters was unable to verify the CNN report.

In his interview with Fox, Trump expressed concern about what he described as the close relationship between Comey and Mueller, who was appointed to take over the investigation after Comey was fired.

“Well he’s very, very good friends with Comey, which is very bothersome,” Trump said, according to the Fox transcript.

The Kremlin has denied U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Moscow tried to tilt the election in Trump’s favor, using such means as hacking into the emails of senior Democrats.

Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion.

(Additional reporting by Tim Ahmann, Steve Holland, Patricia Zengerle and Susan Heavey; Writing by Alistair Bell and Tim Ahmann; Editing by Jonathan Oatis, Peter Cooney and Paul Tait)

Tough-talking Trump defense lawyer says he’s no ‘snowflake’

FILE PHOTO: Lawyer John Dowd exits Manhattan Federal Court in New York May 11, 2011. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File photo

By Karen Freifeld

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The latest lawyer hired to represent U.S. President Donald Trump in the federal investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election is an ex-Marine who likens some cases to war.

“I fight hard,” John Dowd said in an interview. “I believe that’s what I’m supposed to do. I am not a snowflake, I can tell you that.”

“Snowflake” is a disparaging term for people considered overly sensitive and fragile that has been adopted by some Trump supporters to mock liberals.

Dowd, who spoke with Reuters on Wednesday, is a mirror of his client in many ways. He has a no-holds-barred, hyperbolic style and a history of attacking prosecutors, congressional Democrats and the media.

The 76-year-old Washington lawyer, who retired from the firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in 2014, brings criminal defense and government investigation experience to Trump’s legal team.

The team, led by New York lawyer Marc Kasowitz, is tasked with responding to Robert Mueller, the special counsel named by the Justice Department to probe whether anyone associated with Trump or his campaign had any illegal dealings with Russian officials or others with ties to the Kremlin.

Russian officials have denied meddling in the U.S. election, and Trump denies any collusion by his campaign.

In what Dowd said would be his last major trial, he defended billionaire hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam in one of the biggest insider trading cases of all time.

Rajaratnam was convicted of all 14 insider trading counts and sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2011.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Reed Brodsky, who prosecuted the case, said Dowd put on a strong defense in the face of overwhelming evidence. “This is war, and I will defeat you,” Brodsky recalled Dowd declaring in one phone conversation.

Dowd confirmed the sentiment on Wednesday. “It is a war,” he said of such cases.

His tactics in the Rajaratnam case reflected that belief. Dowd aggressively challenged the prosecution’s stance on what constituted insider trading. He also fought the government’s wiretaps of his client’s cell phone, claiming investigators “gamed the system.”

Brodsky said he believed the physically commanding 6-foot-4-inch-tall Dowd would be a “ferocious defender of the president.”

In a manner similar to Trump, Dowd lashed out at what he perceived to be improper leaks by prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the Rajaratnam case, singling out then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in particular.

“He sat in the back of the courtroom with his press dogs,” Dowd said. “It was the most atrocious thing I’ve ever seen.”

Dowd also went after reporters. Bharara, who declined to comment on Wednesday, last weekend retweeted an intemperate 2011 email the defense lawyer sent to a Wall Street Journal reporter he accused of “whoring” for the prosecution.

In another encounter with the press caught on camera, Dowd swore at and gave the middle finger to a CNBC reporter.

Like Trump, Dowd has a tendency to put his own spin on adverse news. After the Rajaratnam verdict, Dowd argued “the defense is winning” because the prosecution chose not to pursue 23 other allegations of insider trading. “The score is 23-14,” he told reporters.

In a 2007 congressional probe of politically motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys, Dowd complained of McCarthyism when his client, former Justice Department official Monica Goodling, was criticized by Democrats for invoking the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.

Dowd represented U.S. Senator John McCain on congressional ethics charges in the 1980s “Keating Five” banking scandal and conducted the Major League Baseball investigation that led to former Hall of Famer Pete Rose being banned from the sport for betting on games while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds.

Dowd would not discuss legal strategy for Trump but said the team the president had assembled was great. “We’re all fighters,” he said.

Though his hiring was first reported Friday, a person familiar with the matter said Dowd has been working with the team for weeks. Dowd said he knew Kasowitz partner Michael Bowe, who is also representing Trump, and met with Kasowitz at the end of May. Jay Sekulow, another member of the team, has been appearing on television on Trump’s behalf.

Dowd also said he talked with the president but declined to describe their conversation. He called Trump “a fighter for the people” and said the president had done nothing wrong.

A onetime military lawyer with the U.S. Marine Corps, Dowd noted his shared service in declining to criticize Mueller, a Marine platoon leader during the Vietnam War.

“Bobby is doing what he has to do and he’ll do a good job,” said Dowd. “He’s a fellow Marine and he’s a good man.”

(Reporting By Karen Freifeld; Editing by Anthony Lin and Tom Brown)

Trump under investigation for possible obstruction of justice: Washington Post

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at Newark International airport in Newark, NJ U.S., to spend a weekend at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminister, New Jersey, June 9, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump is being investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller for possible obstruction of justice, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing unidentified officials.

Mueller is investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Former FBI Director James Comey told Congress last week he believes he was fired by Trump to undermine the agency’s Russia probe.

The Washington Post, citing five people briefed on the requests who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency, and Richard Ledgett, the former deputy director at the NSA, had agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week.

The obstruction of justice investigation into Trump began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter, the Washington Post said.

Trump’s legal team quickly denounced the report on Wednesday.

“The FBI leak of information regarding the President is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team, Mark Corallo, said.

A spokesman for Mueller’s team declined to comment.

Several legal experts told Reuters that Comey’s testimony last week that Trump expected loyalty and told Comey he hoped he could drop an investigation of a former top aide could bolster obstruction of justice allegations against Trump.

Comey would not say in his testimony last week whether he thought the president sought to obstruct justice, but added it would be up to special counsel Mueller “to sort that out.”

After Comey’s testimony, Trump said he had been vindicated because his former FBI director confirmed telling Trump on three occasions that he was not under investigation.

While a sitting president is unlikely to face criminal prosecution, obstruction of justice could form the basis for impeachment. Any such step would face a steep hurdle as it would require approval by the U.S. House of Representatives, which is controlled by Trump’s fellow Republicans.

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland Nathan Layne; Reporting by Eric Beech; Editing by Howard Goller)