Trump Official Reveals ‘Mob Crimes’ At White House?

by Jessica
216 views
Trump

In a recent interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett, legal expert John Cobb shed light on potential obstruction of justice allegations against the former president.

These allegations came to the forefront following recent reports about the ex-president’s purported instructions to his long-time aide, Molly Michael, regarding classified White House documents.

The focal point of the interview was the ex-president’s reported directive to Michael: “You don’t know anything about the boxes,” in relation to classified documents allegedly stored at Mar-a-Lago.

This directive is pivotal as it forms the foundation for potential obstruction of justice charges against the ex-president for impeding the government’s efforts to access these documents.

Cobb’s interpretation of the ex-president’s actions is both striking and consequential. He likened the ex-president’s behavior to that of a mob boss, issuing a direct order to Molly Michael, despite having little reason to believe she would falsify information for him.

Cobb underscored the crucial distinction between loyalty and illegal conduct, emphasizing that Michael was unlikely to cross that line. Consequently, he viewed the ex-president as directly instructing obstruction of justice—a stance that could bolster the credibility of other witnesses testifying about potential obstruction.

Cobb supported his viewpoint by citing Yuscil Taveras, the former IT director of Mar-a-Lago, who reached a cooperation agreement with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office in exchange for immunity.

“I HEAR TRUMP — REALLY, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TERMS OF THE WAY THIS EVIDENCE HAS ROLLED OUT — SPEAKING IN THE TERMS OF A MOB BOSS, GIVING A DIRECT ORDER TO SOMEBODY THAT HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE WOULD LIE FOR HIM, BUT EXPECTING [MICHAEL] TO DO SO,” COBB SAID. “THERE’S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOYALTY AND BREAKING THE LAW, AND THAT’S NOT A LINE SHE WAS GOING TO CROSS. SO IT REALLY IS TRUMP DIRECTLY ORDERING OBSTRUCTION, AND THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE HELPFUL TO ENHANCE THE CREDIBILITY OF OTHERS WHO WILL TESTIFY ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION.”

Cobb’s assessment aligns with the perspectives of numerous legal commentators who have characterized the ex-president’s reported orders as resembling witness tampering, along with concerns about his handling of classified documents.

These revelations surrounding the ex-president’s alleged actions introduce further complexity to his legal predicaments, particularly in the context of potential obstruction of justice charges.

This situation underscores the gravity of these developments and their potential ramifications on ongoing investigations and legal proceedings involving the former president.

Related Posts