Joe Scarborough unapologetically declared on Tuesday’s edition of Morning Joe that President Donald Trump was guilty of a conspiracy to end the FBI investigation into Russia. Stringing together the patchwork mess of media revelations and unsubstantiated claims of recent days he concluded: “Whether you work for Donald Trump in the White House, whether you are the DNI, whether you're the head of the NSA, whether you are the head of the FBI, Donald Trump is asking you to engage in a conspiracy to stop an investigation, to end an investigation, to kill an investigation into possible illegal actions by him and members of his administration, people who are close to him.”
He then turned to George Washington University Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, for validation of his claims. Previously, Turley had rejected the media narrative that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice or impeachment. If Scarborough was hoping for a different result this time around, he was met with disappointment as the following conversation ensued:
SCARBOROUGH: So, let me ask you, does a prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an underlying crime to prove obstruction of justice?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, obviously not if it's the prosecution of an article of impeachment. That doesn't have to be a crime. But, in terms of bringing an actual indictment, it usually is tied to that type of on-going proceeding. We may create some new law here. But, the problem is, this question of what was Trump trying to do here? He could either be Captain Queeg or he could be John Gotti. We don't really know. But, right now he looks very Queeg-like, you know, he looks like someone dispatching people to look for strawberries. That's something you don't normally indict for. I'm not even sure what the crime of collusion is.
On the criminal code there's not a collusion with the Russians crime. That doesn't mean there's not a crime here. We need to articulate what was the underlying crime. I've said from the beginning the place to look is probably in the aftermath of these allegations, with people like Flynn charging him with false statements with regard to his contacts is usually the thing that ends up getting people in trouble in the beltway. Apparently, according to the reports, he said he didn't have significant contact with foreign nationals when he had dinner next to Vladimir Putin. When I filled out my sf-86 for clearance renewal, I was detailing academics I met from other countries. I think I probably would have mentioned dinner with Vladimir Putin. Those type of things can result in crimes, but that's still a bit removed from the president and I think what we end up with is very disturbing patterns here. He is, it seems, trying to derail this investigation. But if we need to tie it to a crime, it's going to have to be a little more concrete than he colluded.
Darn, I guess Joe just missed that class in law school about there not being a 'collusion with Russians' crime on the books right along with the one centered on a person being innocent until proven guilty! Remember Joe, it's never to late to go back to school!
Here are the excerpts from the May 23 exchange:
6:30 AM
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Joe, I'd like to now go back to the meltdown that is Washington, D.C. At this point, given the new revelations about more people that the president pressured or appeared to have pressured to try and back off the Russia investigation, I'm so interested in your view as to what's happened and to these latest revelations about Coates and Rogers and the wording that was used in the memos of the conversations the president had with them because Jonathan Turley, and you can maybe go to him, is still asking what is being obstructed here, what the questions are and to me it seems like the answers are in those words.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, certainly we can expect the former FBI director and now the man investigating this case, Bob Mueller, to put meat on those bones, to see exactly why Donald Trump was so afraid, is so afraid of this Trump-Russia investigation moving forward. Mika, the first thing you're seeing here is a president of the United States putting everybody that works for him in an untenable position. Think about this. He's told the FBI director in this investigation don't look into Michael Flynn anymore, stop it, give me a loyalty oath. And if you're the FBI director and you are told to end an investigation that involves the president of the United States, you have to write it down, and you have to report it to other people, the same with what he did with the head of the NSA, DNI.
They're put in a position where they've been asked to kill an investigation that is looking into possible criminal misconduct by the president of the United States and they are in as untenable position as White House staffers who are in a meeting with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador when the president of the United States brags that the pressure is off, guys, I've killed the investigation, Comey was a nut job, he wouldn't stop. So, I'm no longer under investigation by extension. We are no longer under investigation. So whether you work for Donald Trump in the White House, whether you are the DNI -- whether you're the head of the NSA, whether you are the head of the FBI, Donald Trump is asking you to engage in a conspiracy to stop an investigation, to end an investigation, to kill an investigation into possible illegal actions by him and members of his administration, people who are close to him.
SCARBOROUGH: Jonathan Turley, this is chapter 2 of this story. Chapter 1 was a series of Trump campaign officials and White House officials lying about their contacts with Russians. We're probably up to half a dozen Trump members who actually could have told the truth and it would have been just fine for the attorney general to say, yes, I had several meetings with Russian officials or for Mike Flynn to say, yes, I was on the telephone with the Russian ambassador. I can go down the list. So let me ask you does a prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an underlying crime to prove obstruction of justice?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, obviously not if it's the prosecution of an article of impeachment. That doesn't have to be a crime. But, in terms of bringing an actual indictment, it usually is tied to that type of on-going proceeding. We may create some new law here. But, the problem is, this question of what was Trump trying to do here? He could either be Captain Queeg or he could be John Gotti. We don't really know. But, right now he looks very Queeg-like, you know, he looks like someone dispatching people to look for strawberries. That's something you don't normally indict for. I'm not even sure what the crime of collusion is.
On the criminal code there's not a collusion with the Russians crime. That doesn't mean there's not a crime here. We need to articulate what was the underlying crime. I've said from the beginning the place to look is probably in the aftermath of these allegations, with people like Flynn charging him with false statements with regard to his contacts is usually the thing that ends up getting people in trouble in the beltway. Apparently, according to the reports, he said he didn't have significant contact with foreign nationals when he had dinner next to Vladimir Putin. When I filled out my sf-86 for clearance renewal, I was detailing academics I met from other countries. I think I probably would have mentioned dinner with Vladimir Putin. Those type of things can result in crimes, but that's still a bit removed from the president and I think what we end up with is very disturbing patterns here. He is, it seems, trying to derail this investigation. But if we need to tie it to a crime, it's going to have to be a little more concrete than he colluded.
BRZEZINSKI: Jonathan Turley, thank you very much.
