Former Watergate Prosecutor Says There’s Enough Evidence to Impeach Trump (Video)

In the 90’s, Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. While he wasn’t removed from office, he was still technically impeached.



Fast forward to today, and there’s a very good chance that Donald Trump could be facing charges related to obstruction of justice in his attempts to undermine, if not try to blatantly interfere in, the on-going federal investigation into whether or not his campaign colluded with Russia.

While only Robert Mueller and the people closely involved in his investigation know for certain what evidence he has, if you ask former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks, just based on what we already know, there’s more than enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. If you follow the precedent set by Republicans during the Clinton administration, that scenario should lead to Trump’s impeachment.

MSNBC’s Alex Witt asked Wine-Banks what she’s seen thus far that makes her feel “confident she could put together an obstruction case.”

“I can take a number of pieces and say that a reasonable jury would see those pieces as fitting together and spelling out obstruction,” Wine-Banks stated.

“You have things like the firing of Comey,” she added. “But you also have supporting that the letter that he drafted that said he was firing Comey because of the Russia investigation. He said that to Lester Holt on NBC, saying that he was firing him because of that.”

She then explained how Trump’s put out the message that he’s willing to pardon his “friends” so that they might be less inclined to cooperate with Mueller or the FBI.

“He also pardoned Joe Arpaio and sent a clear message to all witnesses against him that they didn’t have to cooperate with the FBI or with Mueller, that he would pardon them even if they were held in contempt of court or congress for not answering the questions or for perjury even,” Wine-Banks explained.

“There are so many pieces that when you put them together, you go, okay, he fired Sally Yates but he kept Flynn,” she continued. “Why did he do that? That has to have something to do with it.”

Then she said what I’ve been saying for a while now, that Trump’s behavior isn’t that of someone who’s innocent.

“And his constant attack on the media, the FBI and Mueller is definitely part of what looks like an obstruction to me,” Wine-Banks said.

This isn’t some random person off the street saying all of this, Wine-Banks is a former Watergate prosecutor saying that based on what we already know, any reasonable jury would most likely see that Trump’s tried to obstruct justice.


Keep in mind, she’s making this statement based just on what we know now. As she said toward the beginning of the interview, obviously Mueller and his team know much more than we do. So if she already sees more than enough evidence to pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump, imagine what Mueller and the FBI have that could further solidify such a case.

As I’ve said before, how this turns out is anyone’s guess. If you ask me, I don’t see how Trump didn’t obstruct justice and therefore should be impeached.

However, the reason why he’s tried to obstruct justice and undermine the credibility of the FBI is, in my opinion, even more important than the obstruction charges. There’s a reason why he’s so scared of all of this and that’s what could ultimately bring down his “presidency.”

Be sure to follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and if you want to help me keep fighting political ignorance please head over to my Patreon page as well.

Watch the exchange below via MSNBC:




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • strayaway

    Let’s imagine that Russia tried to interfere with the election* and that progressive leaning Facebook, for instance, accepted a small amount of Russian sourced money to run a few ads and then trumpeted that it had done so to make that case. It’s important to establish that Russia did try to interfere because otherwise obstructing justice when nothing happened is like trying to multiply by zero (0 x X = 0) = (no case against Trump x proof that Trump obstructed something that didn’t happen = no case against Trump).

    * It is irrelevant that the US has a history of overthrowing foreign governments and even tapped Merkel’s phone under Obama. Hypocricy is not a concern here. It’s also irrelevant to consider such things as Hillary’s performance as Senator and SOS, calling half the country ‘deplorables’, her contempt for Bernie and his support, and not campaigning in Wisconsin as being factors in her defeat.

  • Nancy E. Rolfe Newnham

    Is this North Korea, Russia or any other dictatorship?

    Get up he says.
    A privilege he says.

    NO! It is the United States of America!

    No wonder Trump’s lawyers do not want him face to face with Mueller!