Trump's Obstruction Of Justice: Which Laws Were Broken?

The House Jan. 6 committee urged the Justice Department to consider prosecuting former President Donald Trump for four different crimes, including obstruction of an official proceeding. The committee's referrals to the Justice Department carry no legal weight, and federal prosecutors are already conducting their own investigation. The committee amassed substantial evidence that Trump sought to obstruct the process, including by summoning supporters to Washington on the day Congress was meeting and through a relentless pressure campaign aimed at getting Vice President Mike Pence to prevent the votes from being certified.

The committee also recommended conservative lawyer John Eastman for prosecution on the same statute, noting that a federal judge in California had already concluded in a separate lawsuit that evidence of a criminal conspiracy likely existed.

Trump has been accused of obstruction of justice in other instances, including when he fired FBI Director James Comey, who was overseeing an investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government.

Obstruction of an official proceeding

On August 1, 2023, a grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump on four charges for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack. One of these charges was "obstructing an official proceeding" under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge relates to the January 6, 2021, joint session of Congress, during which electoral votes were to be counted and Joe Biden was to be certified as the lawful winner. The House Jan. 6 committee amassed substantial evidence that Trump sought to obstruct this process, including by summoning supporters to Washington on the day Congress was meeting and through a relentless but ultimately unsuccessful pressure campaign aimed at getting Vice President Mike Pence to prevent the votes from being certified.

The "obstruction of an official proceeding" statute has been used to bring charges against dozens of rioters, including former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who was also convicted of seditious conspiracy.

According to federal law, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation, or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent. Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of obstruction.

Determining intent is tricky for prosecutors, as it requires them to make a subjective judgment about the suspect's state of mind. If Trump fired Comey in an effort to prevent the FBI from discovering incriminating information about him or his campaign, that would be considered a "corrupt" intent.

Assessing whether a given action is "likely" to interfere with an investigation is a more objective determination. In the case of Trump's discussion with Comey about "letting [General Michael] Flynn go," the Mueller report states that "the President was asking Comey to close the FBI's investigation into Flynn."

In addition, Mueller concludes that Trump's expressions of "hope" would reasonably be understood as a directive when issued by a president to his subordinate.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

The January 6 Committee referred Donald Trump for criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. This is a general statute that makes it a crime to work with someone else to carry out fraud against the U.S.

The Committee's referral carries no legal weight, but federal prosecutors are already conducting their own investigation. On August 1, 2023, a grand jury indicted Trump on four charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. The other charges were obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

The conspiracy to defraud the United States charge relates to Trump's attempts to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election, despite being told by aides that there was no fraud that could have affected the outcome. The Committee also recommended that conservative lawyer John Eastman be prosecuted on the same count.

The Committee's report stated that Trump tried to obstruct the certification of the election by angrily beseeching then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay certification, even though he was told there was no legal basis for him to do so. The report also said that Trump worked with others, both inside and outside of the government, on a "multi-part plan" to stay in power.

Trump was also accused of conspiring with others to submit "fake electors" in battleground states won by Joe Biden as a way to obstruct the certification of the results and invalidate Biden's victory.

Conspiracy to make a false statement

The House Jan. 6 committee urged the Justice Department to consider prosecuting Donald Trump for four different crimes, including conspiracy to make a false statement. The committee's referrals to the Justice Department carry no legal weight since federal prosecutors are already conducting their own investigation and are the sole deciders of whether to pursue charges against Trump.

The committee said it regarded its report as providing a "roadmap to justice" and that focus now shifts to the Justice Department and whether it will concur that the evidence is sufficient for prosecution.

The conspiracy to make a false statement statute touches on conduct that the Justice Department is already known to be investigating—an alleged scheme by Trump allies to submit "fake electors" in battleground states won by Biden as a way to obstruct the certification of the results and invalidate Biden's victory. Those electors signed "patently false" certifications, and the panel maintains it has evidence that Trump was a participant in the scheme.

Months ago, the Justice Department issued grand jury subpoenas to the "fake electors" in multiple states, underscoring prosecutors' interest in the activity.

Inciting or aiding an insurrection

The House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol referred former President Donald Trump for criminal charges, including inciting or aiding an insurrection. The committee's seven Democrats and two Republicans all voted to refer Trump for criminal charges on four counts, including inciting, assisting, or aiding an insurrection.

The committee's final report, which is nearly 850 pages long, details Trump's "Big Lie" and his and others' efforts to deliver a fake slate of electors to Vice President Mike Pence. It also chronicles the major events and players involved in the planning of the insurrection and the committee's witness interviews and information gathering.

The report includes criminal referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice for four counts against Trump, including inciting, assisting, or aiding an insurrection. It is the first time in U.S. history that a congressional body has recommended criminally charging a former president.

The committee found that Trump's desire to overturn the results of a lawful and legitimate election was the driving factor in the unprecedented attack on the Capitol. Trump claimed victory despite knowing he had lost the election, pressured state and federal officials to promote his lie that the election results were fraudulent, summoned his supporters to the Capitol, and incited them to attempt to violently block the certification of election results.

Trump then watched the attack unfold from the White House dining room, showing a dereliction of duty for 187 minutes as he resisted the pleas of advisers who told him to tell the rioters to disperse. The committee noted that Trump's actions violated a core principle of U.S. government: the two-century tradition of a peaceful transition of power.

In addition to the criminal referrals, the committee also recommended that Congress consider creating a formal mechanism to evaluate whether those identified in the report should be barred from holding future office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which allows for the disqualification of anyone who has "engaged in an insurrection or given aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution" from holding federal or state office.

Lawsuits against Trump over the Capitol riot can move forward, as a federal appeals court rejected his bid to dismiss the cases accusing him of inciting the violent mob. The court knocked down Trump's sweeping claims of presidential immunity, stating that a president running for a second term is not carrying out the official duties of the presidency when speaking at a rally funded by his reelection campaign.

Trump has argued that his words during the rally before the storming of the Capitol addressed "matters of public concern" and fall within the scope of absolute presidential immunity. However, the court clarified that its decision is not the final word on the issue of presidential immunity, and Trump can continue to fight the issue as the cases proceed.

Corrupt intent

The question of whether Trump acted with a "corrupt intent" is central to determining if he obstructed justice. This requires establishing that he intended to impede or influence an investigation with a willfully improper purpose.

The House Jan. 6 committee urged the Justice Department to consider prosecuting Trump for four crimes, including obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting or aiding an insurrection.

Trump's attempts to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election results, despite being told by aides that there was no fraud, and his relentless pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to prevent the certification of the votes, constitute evidence of corrupt intent.

Additionally, Trump's private meeting with FBI Director James Comey, where he allegedly said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go," followed by the firing of Comey, further suggests corrupt intent.

Trump's behavior towards Comey, alongside his efforts to block the special counsel's work, such as requesting White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, indicate a pattern of "corrupt" behavior.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant Trump immunity for criminal acts committed while in office sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that presidents are above the law and can escape accountability for even the most blatantly corrupt acts.

Frequently asked questions