Federal prosecutors argued Friday that special counsel Robert Mueller did not need to prove conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump campaign to show that longtime Trump ally Roger Stone obstructed Congress’ investigation of the matter.
“To establish the defendant’s guilt of the crimes with which he is charged, the government is not required to prove the existence of a conspiracy with the Russian government to interfere in the U.S. presidential election,” Mueller’s team, along with the U.S. attorney in Washington D.C., wrote in response to filings Stone submitted on March 28.
That argument has been the subject of controversy in recent weeks, following Attorney General Bill Barr’s suggestion that evidence collected by Mueller implicating President Donald Trump for multiple efforts to thwart his probe fell short, in part because Mueller didn’t establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy.
“The evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false and he knew they were false,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, underscoring that the president’s actions to counter the probe may have been justified by his frustration that he had been falsely linked to claims his campaign conspired with the Russian government. “That is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel,” he said.
Democrats and some legal experts have sharply disputed Barr’s argument, suggesting that Trump’s actions to undermine the probe could have prevented the discovery of evidence of a conspiracy or that he may have been attempting to conceal the discovery of other related crimes — such as allegations that he directed the payment of hush money to two women who accused him of extramarital affairs, evidence of which emerged from Mueller’s investigation. Several of Trump’s closest allies, including Stone, were also charged with crimes in Mueller’s investigation.
But Barr argued that without proof of a conspiracy — the foundation of Mueller’s probe — Trump’s conduct must be viewed through a different lens, especially because as president, he had the inherent authority to fire Mueller and even, in Barr’s view, shutter any investigation he deems unfair and detrimental to his ability to govern.
Stone had pointed to these arguments to undercut Mueller’s prosecution against him, but prosecutors in the case said the arguments were both irrelevant — because they related only to the president — and misinterpreted.
“The indictment alleges, and the evidence admitted at trial will show, that after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the [House and Senate Intelligence Committees], and the Federal Bureau of Investigation all opened or announced investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” prosecutors wrote. “The defendant acted corruptly to obstruct those investigations. And the defendant’s actions were capable of influencing the investigations. That is all the law requires.”
The argument by the U.S. attorney and Mueller’s team essentially contradicts a recent claim made by Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Thursday. “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,” Giuliani tweeted.
………
- Discussion
-
Federal prosecutors argued that Robert Mueller did not need to prove conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump campaign to show that Roger Stone obstructed Congress' investigation of the matter https://t.co/pgr2XHESRe
— POLITICO (@politico) May 4, 2019
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.