Donald Trump’s tweets are now the target of the special prosecutor’s investigation to manufacture an obstruction charge.
Naturally, the New York Times labels Trump’s tweets a “weapon.” Why doesn’t the President have the right to free speech like anyone else on Twitter? Why pretend tweeting is like shooting a firearm.
It seems that legislation in the wake of the Enron scandal might give Robert Mueller some grounds for an obstruction charge. I remember the moral panic that ensued after Enron and it wouldn’t surprise me if Congress did something stupider than usual during the hysteria.
The New York Times reports, “Mueller Examining Trump’s Tweets in Wide-Ranging Obstruction Inquiry.”
Trending: What’s Wrong with Liberals?
For years, President Donald Trump has used Twitter as his go-to public relations weapon, mounting a barrage of attacks on celebrities and then political rivals even after advisers warned he could be creating legal problems for himself.
Those concerns now turn out to be well founded. The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former FBI director James Comey, according to three people briefed on the matter.
Several of the remarks came as Trump was also privately pressuring the men — both key witnesses in the inquiry — about the investigation, and Mueller is examining whether the actions add up to attempts to obstruct the investigation by both intimidating witnesses and pressuring senior law enforcement officials to tamp down the inquiry.
Mueller wants to question the president about the tweets. His interest in them is the latest addition to a range of presidential actions he is investigating as a possible obstruction case: private interactions with Comey, Sessions and other senior administration officials about the Russia inquiry; misleading White House statements; public attacks; and possible pardon offers to potential witnesses.
None of what Mueller has homed in on constitutes obstruction, Trump’s lawyers said. They argued that most of the presidential acts under scrutiny, including the firing of Comey, fall under Trump’s authority as the head of the executive branch and insisted that he should not even have to answer Mueller’s questions about obstruction.
But privately, some of the lawyers have expressed concern that Mueller will stitch together several episodes, encounters and pieces of evidence, like the tweets, to build a case that the president embarked on a broad effort to interfere with the investigation. Prosecutors who lack one slam-dunk piece of evidence in obstruction cases often search for a larger pattern of behavior, legal experts said.
The special counsel’s investigators have told Trump’s lawyers they are examining the tweets under a wide-ranging obstruction-of-justice law beefed up after the Enron accounting scandal, according to the three people.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com