On Nov. 15, Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, publicly testified at the impeachment hearing involving President Donald Trump.
“(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
or
“(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
“Only persons conscious of wrongdoing can be said to ‘knowingly ... corruptly [persuade].’ And limiting criminality to persuaders conscious of their wrongdoing sensibly allows Section 1512(b) to reach only those with the level of ‘culpability ... we usually require in order to impose criminal liability.’ United States v. Aguilar, 515 U. S., at 602; see also Liparota v. United States, supra, at 426.
“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”
The president’s tweet appears to consist of nothing more than his personal opinion and thoughts about Yovanovitch. While the timing of his tweets wasn’t ideal, given that it coincided with Yovanovitch’s live testimony, it’s hard to fathom how the language in this tweet could be construed as a corrupt attempt to obstruct, influence, or impede Yovanovitch’s testimony pursuant to Section (c). It would be even more difficult to find a violation of Section (b) in light of the “knowledge” requirement.
“(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from
Even if the president’s tweet isn’t deemed to be “actionable” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1512 (or obstructive in nature), it was unwise, nonetheless.
The president is the subject of an impeachment inquiry and doesn’t need to provide House Democrats with any additional reasons to pursue him, no matter how seemingly weak they are.
While the president is understandably frustrated with House Democrats and the manner in which they have conducted the impeachment inquiry to date, House Republicans have done a masterful job of defending him during the course of the public hearings and in the eyes of the American public.
As a result, and for the time being, it might be in the president’s best interest to be a bit more cautious or selective with his tweets relative to the impeachment inquiry, so long as it continues pressing forward.