President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani insisted that his client did not commit obstruction of justice while attacking Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano on Friday, only to get totally schooled by several legal experts.
Last week, Napolitano wrote an op-ed explaining that the ten instances of obstruction listed in the Mueller report are indeed obstruction even if there is no underlying crime.
“Obstruction is a rare crime that is rarely completed,” he wrote. “Stated differently, the obstructer need not succeed in order to be charged with obstruction. That’s because the statute itself prohibits attempting to impede or interfere with any government proceeding for a corrupt or self-serving purpose.
“Thus, if my neighbor tackles me on my way into a courthouse in order to impede a jury from hearing my testimony, and, though delayed, I still make it to the courthouse and testify, then the neighbor is guilty of obstruction because he attempted to impede the work of the jury that was waiting to hear me,” he continued. “The nearly universal view of law enforcement, however, is that the obstruction statute prohibits all attempted self-serving interference with government investigations or proceedings.”
Therefore, Trump committed obstruction because he ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and repeatedly tried to undermine the federal probe.
So, Giuliani attacked Napolitano for laying out the legal facts.
I consider Judge Napolitano to be a friend so I write this with regret. An obstruction case where there is no proof of an underlying crime is questionable. If you add to it nothing actually obstructed, there’s no case. Judge reconsider your position. This is a Weismann.
— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) May 3, 2019
And in response, legal experts crushed Rudy like a bug.
Attorney Jennifer Taub struck the first blow.
Incorrect. Obstruction of justice even applies to efforts to interfere with civil litigation. See U.S. v. Lundwall. Also, corrupt attempts to obstruct a proceeding even when one isn’t the subject, is a crime. Mueller’s grand jury indicted many people. https://t.co/yLCJ31IdEr
— Jennifer Taub (@jentaub) May 3, 2019
Then attorney George Conway cited specific DOJ guidelines and legal statutes while rebuking him.
There’s a section of the DOJ manual that nicely captures what obstruction of justice is about. It’s got nothing to do with whether there’s an underlying offense. It’s all about whether someone is trying to wrongly influence a participant in federal proceeding, …
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) May 3, 2019
… or to retaliate for someone’s past participation in a federal proceeding. Here’s a key passage, referring to Sections 1512 and 1513 of the criminal code:https://t.co/wkyHcF5wCG pic.twitter.com/SAoiqJsJm9
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) May 3, 2019
There doesn’t have to be an underlying offense; the proceeding can be about trying to figure out whether there was an underlying offense. This isn’t hard.
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) May 3, 2019
And … there’s also a whole section of the manual devoted to the basic proposition that obstruction doesn’t have to be successful to be obstruction. https://t.co/eX854pDX1a
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) May 3, 2019
So stop it with the garbage, Rudy.
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) May 3, 2019
Former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah, who worked at the Southern District of New York office, capped off the humiliation.
This is 100% wrong as a legal & factual matter. Obstruction is – & must be – prosecutable regardless of an underlying crime or else “successful” obstructors would always be rewarded. 1/2 https://t.co/t1d4sbPq5o
— Mimi Rocah (@Mimirocah1) May 3, 2019
Also, the obstruction was of 1) the Russian attack which Trump continues to deny & 2) “any” crimes Mueller could’ve found along the way while investigating Trump (see SDNY & other referrals) & 3) I do believe some of the attempts were successful like the Manafort pardon dangling.
— Mimi Rocah (@Mimirocah1) May 3, 2019
Giuliani fell on his face with this desperate effort to defend Trump, demonstrating that he should be disbarred and has no business ever serving or working in the legal field ever again. It also underscores the importance of why Mueller and McGahn must testify before Congress. Because once they testify, Trump is toast.
Featured Image: Screenshot
