Fox’s Napolitano Says Barr is ‘Wrong’ on Obstruction: Trump’s Actions ‘Unlawful, Defenseless and Condemnable’
Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano took a deep dive into Robert Mueller‘s report on Thursday, raising questions about Attorney General William Barr‘s conclusion that President Donald Trump didn’t commit obstruction of justice.
In an online op-ed and video segment for Fox, Napolitano described the legal definitions of obstruction of justice, and noted Trump’s multiple attempts to interfere with the work of investigators looking into his 2016 campaign. Napolitano cycled through several examples from Mueller’s report, including Trump’s dangling of a pardon to get Michael Cohen not to testify against him, and also Trump’s request for Don McGahn to fire Mueller, lying about it, and then changing his testimony before the special counsel.
Brief side note: Trump is currently denying that he ever ordered McGahn to get rid of Mueller.
Napolitano moved on by suggesting Mueller wrote his report the way he did because he knew Barr would block an indictment of Trump because of his personal views about obstruction statutes, which puts it into question whether Trump could be charged successfully.
“Barr’s view requires that the obstructer has done his obstructing in order to impede the investigation or prosecution of a crime that the obstructer himself has committed. Thus, in this narrow view, because Trump did not commit the crime of conspiracy with the Russians, it was legally impossible for Trump to have obstructed the FBI investigation of that crime.”
Napolitano argued on the other hand against Barr’s view that there needs to be an underlying crime for someone to commit obstruction, pointing out Martha Stewart‘s conviction.
The conclusion Napolitano reached is that Barr is “wrong,” and that the AG’s opinion is contrary to the understanding that obstruction statutes forbid all interference with government proceedings to one’s benefit:
The president’s job is to enforce federal law. If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.
Watch above, via Fox News.
