3 Points for the Law Professor: Trump’s Obstruction Case Is a “Slam Dunk”

Kellyanne Conway

An award-winning law professor from Duke University and lead prosecutor in the Exxon case, Samuel Buell, believes the case against Trump regarding his alleged obstruction of justice is a “slam dunk.”

A Clear Case for Obstruction of Justice

Buell claims that all three elements for an obstruction of justice case are met in the president’s case. The professor thinks that when Trump instructed former FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into his now-disgraced national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump tried to disrupt a federal investigation.

What’s more, when Trump made the request he had the investigation in mind, and the directive was made with “corrupt intent.” The law professor argues that many other people were convicted when courts found these three elements. Buell also highlighted that Trump and his cronies made the prosecutors’ job a lot easier with their careless public statements.

Comey said Trump told him he “hoped” of him to drop the case against Flynn. The word “hope” isn’t a direct order to Comey, Trump’s supporters say. Buell, however, claims that the argument doesn’t hold water.

Trump’s Impeachment Unlikely at the Moment

The former prosecutor underlined that a person with “immense power” is trying to influence the course of action even though the wording may seem soft. Buell compared Trump with a mob boss from The Sopranos who doesn’t take no for an answer.

“As a matter of law, expressing “hope” can constitute obstruction of justice,”

Buell said.

He noted that there are many cases of obstruction which led to people being convicted even though they had employed subtle hints when influencing others instead of direct orders.

Buell is less confident that the affair could lead to Trump’s impeachment since it takes two-thirds of Senators to vote for impeachment. At the moment, finding 19 Republicans to turn on Trump is very doubtful.

Image Source: Flickr