LAWFARE: The Trump Legal Team's Remarkable Letter to Mueller

[kpete]

...................the 2018 letter makes a number of remarkable, and sometimes very questionable, assertions.

First, it argues that the president has already allowed the Special Counsel to have many documents and interview White House staff, and that “Iin light of these voluntary offerings, your office clearly lacks the requisite need to personally interview the President.” It acknowledges Comey’s accusation that Trump ordered him to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn—“He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go”—but contends that Mueller can’t ask Trump about the conversation because “[t]he White House denied and refuted that the President said these words to Mr. Comey.” There is a heightened standard for interviewing a president. But an interview can’t be avoided merely because other evidence is available and defense lawyers (or “the White House”) have said that they disagree with the accuser’s testimony implicating their client.

Second, even if Trump did order Comey to drop the investigation, the letter says, his defense lawyers have identified a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, that couldn’t have been violated because (they say, as have some courts) it doesn’t apply to FBI investigations. In connection with this legal argument, the letter seems to argue several fallback positions, although they are presented in ways I found a bit hard to follow. Among them are claims that there was no FBI investigation; that if there was an investigation it was closed (or at least was thought to be closed by certain members of the White House staff) by the time the president spoke to Comey about Flynn; that Flynn didn’t lie to the FBI; that Flynn did lie to the White House about various matters (and was fired for it); and that in any event he ultimately pleaded guilty so there could not have been any obstruction. I am not sure how the special counsel will react to all of this, except that he and his team will likely get at least as far as Charlie Savage of the New York Times did in noting that there are several statutes that may have been violated, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1512, and that obstruction need not succeed to be a crime.

Third, the letter tries to deal with some of the president’s more problematic prior statements on the topic. It begins with Trump’s on-camera statement to Lester Holt that “when I decided to just do it” and fire Comey, “I said to myself ... you know this Russia thing with Trump is a made-up story.” This, the letter argues, was not an admission that Trump fired Comey because of the Russia investigation—“in fact,” the letter asserts, “the President did not ever say such a thing.” Similarly, when Trump reportedly told the Russian ambassador that firing Comey had “taken off” the “great pressure because of Russia,” it doesn’t show he did so “because of the Russia investigation.” The idea, I guess, is that it might just have been a coincidence. Finally, the letter says, although Trump may have helped Donald Trump, Jr. lie about the meeting at Trump Tower in which a purported Russian government official was supposed to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton, that was just “a private matter with the New York Times,” not an interview with the FBI, and therefore not a crime about which he can be questioned. As arguments for Trump’s innocence despite his prior statements, these arguments are strained. As arguments against even asking him about the statements, they strike me as pretty silly.

The final sentences of the letter are perhaps the most meaningful, albeit unintentionally. They say that Trump’s lawyers are prepared to “provide . . . the answers” to the Special Counsel’s questions, apparently instead of having Trump do so himself, in order to help “preserve the dignity of the Office of the President of the United States.” I spent a moment wondering, but in the end I think they didn’t mean this the way it sounds.


the rest:
https://lawfareblog.com/trump-legal-teams-remarkable-letter-mueller

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Link, please?

[samnsara]

2. we need to use air quotes when we say Trumps 'legal team'

[Wellstone ruled]

3. I think most thinking folks

understand,this is a massive PR Campaign to confuse the unthinking Public. That said,Right Wing Media has that covered.

[BootinUp]

4. Dignity? What dignity?

Dignity can only be restored when this pestilence on the office is exterminated.

[procon]

5. What "dignity of the Office" are they imagining?

Trump is a shameless womanizer, accused by many women, who brags about assaulting them, and savors uncestuous thoughts sbout his own daugnter. To demand dignity implies there is some moral and ethical standard to be preserved, and Trump does not qualified for either.

[Frustratedlady]

6. How much do these clowns make per hour?

Anything over $3.99 is a gift. Little in that portion of the letter makes sense.

[Gothmog]

7. No, Trump can't pardon himself. The Constitution tells us so.

From Prof. Tribe and others https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.a066d8b411f4

Can a president pardon himself? Four days before Richard Nixon resigned, his own Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opined no, citing “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.” We agree.

The Justice Department was right that guidance could be found in the enduring principles that no one can be both the judge and the defendant in the same matter, and that no one is above the law.

The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal. It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.

The pardon provision of the Constitution is there to enable the president to act essentially in the role of a judge of another person’s criminal case, and to intervene on behalf of the defendant when the president determines that would be equitable. For example, the president might believe the courts made the wrong decision about someone’s guilt or about sentencing; President Barack Obama felt this way about excessive sentences for low-level drug offenses. Or the president might be impressed by the defendant’s subsequent conduct and, using powers far exceeding those of a parole board, might issue a pardon or commutation of sentence.....

President Trump thinks he can do a lot of things just because he is president. He says that the president can act as if he has no conflicts of interest. He says that he can fire the FBI director for any reason he wants (and he admitted to the most outrageous of reasons in interviews and in discussion with the Russian ambassador). In one sense, Trump is right — he can do all of these things, although there will be legal repercussions if he does. Using official powers for corrupt purposes — such as impeding or obstructing an investigation — can constitute a crime.

But there is one thing we know that Trump cannot do — without being a first in all of human history. He cannot pardon himself.