Trump’s latest tweets cross clear lines, experts say: Obstruction of justice and witness tampering

legal experts are calling Monday’s missives a newsworthy development that amounts to evidence of obstructing justice.

Trump’s first statement went out after Michael Cohen, his former personal attorney who pleaded guilty last week for lying to Congress about the president’s real estate project in Russia. In his tweet, Trump alleged that Cohen lied to Mueller and called for a severe penalty, demanding that his former fixer “serve a full and complete sentence.”

.. After the overt attack on Cohen came a tweet encouraging Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump, not to become a witness against him:

.. “’I will never testify against Trump.’ This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about ‘President Trump.’ Nice to know that some people still have ‘guts!’”
.. Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that the most striking thing about Monday was that there were two statements in proximity.

“It comes very close to the statutory definition of witness tampering,” he said. “It’s a mirror image of the first tweet, only he’s praising a witness for not cooperating with the implication of reward,” he said, adding that Trump has pardon power over Stone.

.. “We’re so used to President Trump transgressing norms in his public declarations,” Eisen said, “but he may have crossed the legal line.”

.. Respected figures across party lines also responded to Trump’s tweets on the social media platform.

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) called it “serious,” adding that “the President of the United States should not be using his platform to influence potential witnesses in a federal investigation involving his campaign.”

.. Attorney George Conway, husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, referenced the federal statute most likely to create legal liability for Trump: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512, which outlines the crime of witness tampering.

John Yoo: Trump’s Appointment of Whitaker ‘Unconstitutional’

Yoo said that the Supreme Court has made it “clear” that the president cannot appoint a “principal officer” without getting them confirmed by the Senate.

“The Constitution says that principal officers must go through appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. In Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court made clear that the attorney general is a principal officer. Therefore, Whittaker cannot serve as acting attorney general despite the Vacancies Act (which does provide for him to be acting AG) — the statute is unconstitutional when applied in this way.”

This same argument was made by constitutional lawyer David Rivkin, attorneys Neal Katyal and George Conway, husband of presidential Kellyanne Conway, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote in 2016 that even a temporary appointment of a principal officer that is not confirmed by the Senate would be unconstitutional.