‘That’s A Really Weird One!’ CNN’s McCabe Says Mar-a-Lago Pool Flood Suspicious — But Tough To Prove ‘Chargeable Offense’
CNN law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe said the draining of a pool at Mar-a-Lago raised “suspicion” because it caused the flooding of a room containing servers with surveillance footage, but would be unlikely to result in a “chargeable offense.”
The reporting team of Katelyn Polantz, Jeremy Herb, and Kaitlan Collins dropped another scoop Monday, reporting that prosecutors in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents probe have been asking witnesses about the incident in which the draining of the pool flooded a server room, but reportedly did not damage the equipment.
On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, host Anderson Cooper asked McCabe what he made of the report, and McCabe told Cooper it’s an indication of how little prosecutors trust what Trump’s side has been doing and saying — but without proof of “intentionality” the pool incident won’t likely result in charges:
COOPER: What do you make of Kaitlan Collins’ reporting about the Mar-a-Lago pool flood raising suspicions among prosecutors?
MCCABE: Yes. That’s a really weird one. I mean, it certainly indicates — it gives you an indication of the high degree of suspicion that each side has of the other. Certainly, DOJ is investigating obstruction here, we know that from the search warrant application.
So they are going to look at every possible act as a possible you know — every act is a possible element of obstruction. In this case, with the witnesses already saying that the flood didn’t really damage the computers, it is hard to say. Until we hear that the Trump team is actually claiming that they cannot produce the videos requested under the subpoenas because the material was damaged by water, it is hard to say that they’re actually using that as some sort of a obstructive method.
COOPER: What does obstruction look like? I mean, from a legal standpoint.
MCCABE: So obstruction — you know, in order to charge someone with obstruction, you have to be able to prove that they intended to obstruct an official proceeding, right?
So an accident, the accidental flooding of a room with computers in it, without more evidence of actual intent to stop or obstruct the proceeding, in this case the investigation wouldn’t probably rise to the level of a chargeable offense.
However, conversations with your lawyer in which you’re lying to your lawyer about where the docs are and what’s available to be searched as is also allegedly taking place in this case, that could very well end up as a chargeable offense.
Watch above via Anderson Cooper 360.
Have a tip we should know? email@example.com