How Robert Mueller Handed Congress a Roadmap to Impeachment

By Stephen P. Pizzo

When Special Council, Robert Mueller, filed his final report, he handed Congress a clear and factual roadmap to the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. The heads of several House committees have said in recent days, that their investigations into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russian operatives in the lead up the 2016 election, and the President’s own statements and actions interfering with the Special Counsel’s investigation, now represent nothing less than a pre-impeachment inquiry.

But, in reality, not a lot more investigation is really required, as Robert Mueller’’s report lays out in unequivocal detail the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Donald J. Trump.

Below we lay out those charges as Articles of Impeachment, exactly as they appear in Mueller’s report. Even without access to the redacted portions of that report, the crimes delineated in the Special Counsel’s report offer more than enough evidence to impeach President Trump. (Boldemphasis ours in Mueller quotes)

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

RESOLUTIONImpeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved,That Donald J. Trump, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Summary

In his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:

Donald J. Trump did willfully commit multiple attempts to obstruct justice and impede a lawfully executed Department of Justice, to wit, the investigation conducted by Special Counsel, Robert Mueller.

In the course of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation Mr. Mueller reported that he found that in the course of his investigation Donald J. Trump did;

1. suborn perjury by encouraging potential witnesses to lie to the Special Counsel and/or the Grand Jury
2. tampered with witnesses in an effort to change their testimony
3. employed corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence
4. corruptly used the power of his office to obstruct justice
5. employed public statements as President to threaten potential witnesses or their families
6. corruptly used the power of his office to remove federal officials and investigators who refused to end or alter investigations into his or his presidential campaign’s actions
7. corruptly produced and had filed a false account of a key meeting held during the campaign in Trump Tower between his son, campaign manager and a hostile foreign power

In doing this, Donald J. Trump has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Articles of Impeachment

In his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal investigation involving his campaign and his own actions.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme, as discovered by and delineated in Special Counsel’s report, include the following acts:

1. On or about June 14, 2017, Donald J. Trump did attempt to corruptly use the power of his office to induce the then FBI director, James Comey, to drop an active investigation of an administration official, Michael Flynn. According to a finding of fact, the Special Counsel reported that, in a private Oval Office meeting, Donald J. Trump asked of Comey;

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. . . . I hope you can let this go.”(Pg, 252)

2) On or about May 9, 2017, after FBI Director Comey continued his investigation into Michael Flynn and Russia’s alleged involvement with members of the Trump campaign, Donald J. Trump summarily fired James Comey. The motive for his firing, as pointed out in the Special Counsel’s finding of facts, and Donald J.Trump’s own public statements, was Comey’s ongoing investigation into the Donald J. Trump and his campaign’s alleged ties to Russia;

“The day after firing Corney, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off’ by Corney’s firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Corney regardless of the Department of Justice’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it,” he was thinking that ‘this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’” (Pg 216 Special Counsel’s Report)

(3) After the appointment of a Special Counsel, Donald J. Trump tried to get the Special Council removed, as delineated in the Special Counsel’s final report:

“On June 17, 2017, the President called (White House Counsel) McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and saythat the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.”(Pg 216 Special Counsel’s Report)

1. On or about July 19, 2017, having failed in his previous attempts to have the Special Counsel removed, Donald J. Trump did corruptly use his office in an attempt to intimidate Attorney General, Jeffrey Sessions to “un-recluse” himself from the investigation for the stated purpose of having him limit the scope of that investigation into just future election interference, thereby removing himself and his campaign from the current probe. When Sessions refused Donald J. Trump then corruptly used his high office to issue public statements critical of Sessions in an attempt to threaten him.

“…the President publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions’s job was in jeopardy… The timing and circumstances of the President’s actions support the conclusion that he sought that result.The President’s initial direction that Sessions should limit the Special Counsel’s investigation came just two days after the President had ordered McGahn to ~ave the Special Counsel removed, which itself followed public reports that the President was personally under investigation for obstruction of justice. The sequence of those events raises an inference that after seeking to terminate the Special Counsel, the President sought to exclude his and his campaign’s conduct from the investigation’s.(Pg 302 Special Counsel Report)

1. Donald J. Trump did, on several occasions, corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal investigation against him to make statements to Federal law enforcement, the Special Counsel and/or the Grand Jury that he knew to be perjurious, false and/or misleading, as noted in the Special Counsel’s report:

Witness Michael Flynn:“With regard to Flynn, the President sent private and public messages to Flynnencouraging him to stay strong and conveying that the President still cared about himbefore he began to cooperate with the government.” (pg 218 Special Counsel Report)

Witness Paul Manafort:“With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential to influence Manafort’s decision whether to cooperate with the government.The President and his personal counsel made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to “flip” and cooperate with the government.”(Pg 343 Special Counsel Report)

Attempted Jury Tampering; Paul Manafort:“The President’s public statements during the Manafort trial, including during jury deliberations, also had the potential to influence the trial jury. On the second day of trial, for example, the President called the prosecution a “terrible situation” and a “hoax” that “continues to stain our country”and referred to Manafort as a “Reagan/Dole darling” who was “serving solitary confinement” even though he was “convicted of nothing.”

“Those statements were widely picked up by the press…the President’s statements during the trial generated substantial media coverage that could have reached jurors if they happened to see the statements or learned about them from others. And the President’s statements during jury deliberations that Manafort “happens to be a very good person” and that “it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort” had the potential to influence jurors who learned of the statements,which the President made just as jurors were considering whether to convict or acquit Manafort…We also examined the evidence of the President’s intent in making public statements about Manafort at the beginning of his trial and when the jury was deliberating. Some evidence supports a conclusion that the President intended, at least in part, to influence the jury. ”(p 337 Special Counsel Report)

Witness: Michael Cohn: “In 2017, Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project, including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the (Moscow Trump Tower)project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a “party line” that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President’s connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony, Cohen had extensive discussions with the President’s personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should “ stay on message” and not contradict the President.After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not “flip,” and contacted him directly to tell him to “stay strong,” and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of.”(Pg 218 Special Counsel Report)

“In analyzing the President’s intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen’s information would shed adverse light on the President’s campaign-period conduct and statements. The evidence could support an inference that the President was aware of these facts at the time of Cohen’s false statements to Congress. The content and timing of the President’s provision of information about his knowledge and actions regarding the Trump Tower Moscow project is evidence that the President may have been concerned about the information that Cohen could provide as a witness.(Pg 367 Special Counsel Report)

Witness Intimidation, Michael Cohen:“Finally, the President’s statements insinuating that members of Cohen’s family committed crimes after Cohen began cooperating with the governmentcould be viewed as an effort to retaliate against Cohen and chill further testimony adverse to the President by Cohen or others.” (Pps 363, 366, 368, Special Counsel Report)

Witness: Don McGahn:Defendant Trump was alarmed when he learned that (Donald) McGahn was cooperating with the Special Counsel, fearing that McGahn had revealed his attempts to have the Special Counsel fired. Knowing that McGahn’s cooperation was likely to be ongoing, Defendant then tried to convince McGahn to change(falsify)his future public and private testimony:

“…in the Oval Office meeting, the President indicated he knew that McGahn had told the Special Counsel’s Office about the President’s effort to remove the Special Counsel. The President challenged McGahn for disclosing that information and for taking notes that he viewed as creating unnecessary legal exposure. That evidence indicates the President’s awareness that the June 17, 2017 events were relevant to the Special Counsel’s investigation and any grand jury investigation that might grow out of it.(Pps 330, 331)

“But because McGahn had repeatedly spoken to investigators and the obstruction inquiry was not complete, it was foreseeable that he would be interviewed again on obstruction-related topics. If the President were focused solely on a press strategy in seeking to have McGahn refute the New York Times article, a nexus to a proceeding or to further investigative interviews would not be shown. But the President’s efforts to have McGahn write a letter “for our records” approximately ten days after the stories had come out- well past the typical time to issue a correction for a news story-indicates the President was not focused solely on a press strategy, but instead likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it. (Pg 331)

“The President made repeated attempts to get McGahn to change his story.the President brought up the Special Counsel investigation in his Oval Office meeting with McGahn and criticized him for telling this Office about the June 17, 2017 events. The President’s statements reflect his understanding-and his displeasure-that those events would be part of an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. (Pg 332)

“Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conducttowards the investigation. Several facts support that conclusion. (Pg 332 Special Counsel Report)

CONCLUSION

The Special Counsel concluded that there was an “abundance of evidence” that Defendant, Donald J. Trump did, on several occasions, encourage a witness in a Federal criminal investigation to give perjurious, false and/or misleading information to investigators and/or the Grand Jury. The Special Counsel took special note of the “defense” that the Defendant did not intend to commit the crime of witness tampering because many of his attempts were made in the form of public statements:

“…many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view. While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President’s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system’s integrity is equally threatened. Pps 219, 369)

Furthermore, the Special Counsel found both intent and motive in the Defendant’s attempts to tamper with witnesses and obstructions of justice:

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations…In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election.” (Pg 369 Special Counsel Report)

In all of this, Donald J. Trump has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any of- fice of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.