?With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President?s actions had the potential to influence Manafort?s decision whether to cooperate with the government.?
?Evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.?
?Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn?s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President?s conduct towards the investigation.?
?Taken together, the President?s directives indicate that [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign with the Special Counsel being permitted to ?move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.??
?This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel.?
?The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen?s credibility once Cohen began cooperating.?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
