Yes, Trump May Face Credible Obstruction-of-Justice Claims
at present, I do not believe that sufficient evidence exists to credibly claim that the president has obstructed justice.
I agree with my colleague Andrew McCarthy’s assessment that it is entirely plausible (maybe even probable) that Trump fired James Comey not to stop or obstruct any investigation, but rather because Comey wouldn’t say in public what he’d admittedly said behind closed doors — that Trump wasn’t being personally investigated for colluding with Russia.
.. it’s common for investigators to indict or convict the targets of their investigations for misconduct committed during the investigation, rather than for the alleged crimes that sparked the initial inquiries.
.. There is already enough evidence to justify rigorous further inquiry.
.. There now exists sworn testimony that Trump asked Comey for personal loyalty and asked Comey to drop a criminal investigation of Michael Flynn. After Comey didn’t comply with any of these requests, Trump fired him and then misled the public as to the reason for the termination. These requests are far more problematic than the request to publicly state that Trump wasn’t under personal investigation. Both of them — when combined with the termination and shifting explanations — raise alarms for anyone concerned about the rule of law.
.. Trump’s primary firewall is political, not legal. Impeachment is a political process, though heavily influenced by legal arguments.
.. The more he undermines himself politically, and the more he lashes out, the more danger he’s in. For example, Trump’s vow to testify under oath to refute Comey’s key claims was reckless. More than one person has walked into an FBI interview or deposition confident in his ability to explain his actions. More than one has walked out legally ruined.