6 Ex-Federal Prosecutors in South Florida Call Out Trump's Conduct
Many of the signatories said the idea that prosecutors could not get a conviction on special counsel Robert Mueller's evidence "runs counter to logic and our experience."
May 06, 2019 at 02:49 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Six former South Florida federal prosecutors, including two who served as U.S. attorney, are among more than 400 nationally who signed a statement saying President Donald Trump would face an obstruction of justice charge were he not in office.
The former prosecutors, many of whom hold posts in Big Law as white-collar defenders, argued Special Counsel Robert Mueller III presented sufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge against Trump. The statement counters the opposite conclusion drawn by U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting president, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former prosecutors wrote in the letter posted on the site Medium.
The South Florida signatories are former U.S. Attorneys Jeffrey Sloman of Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya in Miami and Leon Kellner in Coral Gables; Norman Moscowitz and Jane Moscowitz of Moscowitz & Moscowitz in Coral Gables; Bruce Udolf in Fort Lauderdale; and Joseph McSorley in Palm Beach Gardens.
Other signers who served Democratic and Republican administrations, sometimes both, include Robert Weiner of Arnold & Porter, a former associate deputy attorney general; Geoffrey Graber, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and a former deputy associate attorney general; Lorin Reisner, a Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison partner who led the criminal division in the Southern District of New York; and Bradley Harsch, a special counsel at Sullivan & Cromwell and a former public-corruption prosecutor in New Jersey.
Mueller did not make a recommendation on obstruction of justice, but his report laid out nearly a dozen instances of alleged obstructive conduct. Mueller's report pointed to a Justice Department policy crafted by the Office of Legal Counsel stating the prosecution of a sitting president is out of bounds. Mueller's report did not exonerate Trump, and Mueller said he would say if he believed Trump had not committed a crime.
Barr and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, concluded Mueller's evidence did not amount to obstruction.
“Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president,” Barr wrote in a March 24 letter to Congress. Defending the president, Barr later said at a news conference that Trump was “frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency.”
Mueller presented evidence that Trump used his authority over others to try to “control and impede” the ongoing investigation of Russia interference in the 2016 election, according to the former prosecutors who signed onto the letter. That evidence included unsuccessfully pressuring then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his decision to recuse and the president's efforts to direct then-White House Counsel Donald McGahn to fire Mueller.
The statement by prosecutors said, “These are not matters of close professional judgment.” Defenses could be raised, the letter said, and “every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
Barr is facing pressure from House Democrats to release a full, unredacted copy of Mueller's report. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to move forward with a contempt vote Wednesday, potentially pushing the dispute to Washington's federal trial court.
Mueller, meanwhile, hasn't spoken about his work on the 448-page report. But a House Judiciary Committee member said Sunday that the committee was trying to arrange a time for Mueller to testify.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrump's Lawyers Speak Out: 'The President Had the Confidence to Retain Me'
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250