President Donald Trump fired former FBI director James Comey while he was investigating the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia. Today (June 8) at 10 a.m. ET, Comey will testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about what happened, including conversations he had with Trump that suggest the president attempted to influence the investigation.
You can watch a livestream of the open hearing above, courtesy of Vox, and read Comey’s opening statement here. But first, read attorney and writer Seth Abramson‘s Twitter thread on obstruction of justice, which breaks down what the committee is listening for in today’s proceedings.
(THREAD) Do NOT watch tomorrow’s historic Senate hearing without understanding Obstruction of Justice. This thread explains it—please share. pic.twitter.com/UNUpA7DvaJ
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(1) Obstruction of Justice IS a legal term and federal criminal statute. It has a strict legal definition. It is NOT open to interpretation.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(2) Obstruction of Justice is NOT a political term. Politicians may NOT define it in whatever way pleases them or may advantage their party.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(3) But the history of impeachments—impeachment being a political process—establishes that Obstruction of Justice IS an impeachable offense.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(4) If public testimony establishes a "prima facie" case of Obstruction of Justice—a sufficient case on its face—Trump SHOULD be impeached.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(5) The federal Obstruction of Justice statute does NOT take into account—or care about whatsoever—how a defendant’s actions made you FEEL.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(6) The Obstruction of Justice statute ALSO does NOT take into account—or care about at all—whether an investigation was in FACT obstructed.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(7) Questions tomorrow about how Trump’s actions made Jim Comey FEEL—or about whether those actions IMPEDED an investigation—are IRRELEVANT.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(8) As an attorney, I know Tweet #7 will be confusing to some people. But remember we are discussing a *strictly defined* criminal act here.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(9) Obstruction of Justice IS about *actions* of the defendant. It is NOT about the *specific intent* of the defendant in acting as he did.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(10) This is because Obstruction of Justice is NOT a "specific intent" crime. It requires only the defendant’s knowledge of HOW he’s acting.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(11) As the subsection of the Obstruction of Justice statute relevant here involves words, a defendant’s knowledge of his words is PRESUMED.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(12) Therefore any Obstruction of Justice case against President Trump IS about—almost exclusively—the nature of the words he said to Comey.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(14) What this means is—as we’ve already seen Comey’s opening statement—we KNOW that he will allege Trump committed Obstruction of Justice.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(15) It does NOT matter if Comey says he didn’t FEEL Trump was obstructing justice. It might’ve helped a prosecution, but it is unnecessary.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(16) Tomorrow we’ll see a concerted GOP effort—it actually started at today’s hearing—to misinform us about what Obstruction of Justice is.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(17) The reason the GOP must misinform us about what Obstruction of Justice is? THEY established—with Clinton—it IS an impeachable offense.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(18) And under "Obstruction by Intimidation, Threats, Persuasion, or Deception (18 U.S.C. 1512[b]), Trump DID "attempt to persuade" Comey.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(19) His "attempt to persuade" involved words whose clear meaning would have been to impede or end a pending federal criminal investigation.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(20) So DON’T let GOP pols or pundits—or conservative pals—use disinformation about Obstruction of Justice to obscure how historic today is.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(21) Another lie you’ll hear tomorrow is Obstruction of Justice is hard to prove. It isn’t—at all. Because it’s NOT a specific intent crime.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(22) As only Comey and Trump were present when the words making up the case were said—by Trump’s design—this SEEMS a "he said/he said" case.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(23) This too is a sort of lie. Comey a) contemporaneously memorialized the conduct, and b) is testifying about it under penalty of perjury.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(24) On this record, NO reasonable juror could conclude Trump didn’t commit Obstruction of Justice—especially as Trump won’t deny the words.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(25) What this means is, Mueller WILL report to Congress that—were Trump not president—Mueller would indict him for Obstruction of Justice.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017
(PS) If you’re looking for a shorthand for tomorrow: in Obstruction of Justice, WORDS and their CONTEXT matter; FEELINGS and EFFECTS do not.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 7, 2017