For someone with such a long history of dismissing reports in the mainstream media, Donald Trump surely seems to spend a lot of time following those reports.
On Monday morning, he seemed to respond to a new report in Rolling Stone about possible criminal charges for a lawyer of his, Evan Corcoran. The charges would be in connection to the ongoing investigation into the handling of classified documents from the Trump administration. The report specifically mentioned the possibility of an obstruction claim and noted that a series of advisers to Trump have pushed against Corcoran in private discussions with the ex-president, where some raised their expectation of “very likely” charges. Trump has proven predictably resistant, and Corcoran, who has been dealing with Trump’s side in the dispute over those classified docs, remains on his legal team. The Justice Department is presently pushing for a judicial demand for Corcoran to provide additional answers after he was resistant on some questions before a grand jury, citing attorney-client privilege.
“You can’t find Obstruction of Justice when there is no crime, or when a crime is made up, fiction, and fails,” Trump claimed on Truth Social this Monday. It’s not for Trump to decide whether there is “no crime.” Besides, his basic understanding of the legal principle seems incorrect. Obstruction is its own charge and doesn’t seem necessarily dependent on any other charge being proven. If you obstruct a federal investigation that doesn’t actually culminate in any other major criminal charges, that’s still a problem. Two of the pieces of federal law referenced in search warrant materials ahead of the FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago in the documents investigation that covered the potential obstruction of a federal probe and possible meddling with records don’t specify the regulations are only applicable if the probe also resulted in other charges.
“Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both,” the regulations say. In other words, it seems this is yet another occasion when arguments Trump might be raising online or generally in public would be rhetorically laughed out of court. It’s worth noting his contentions of facing political animosity in action against him from New York state Attorney General Letitia James over his family business have been repeatedly rejected in court, although that’s obviously not going to stop him from continuing to act as though his claims have merit in public.
