Dear Ms. Speaker:

The Special Counsel’s Report [hereinafter “Report”] offers the basis for the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment inquiry. See Report. There is no need for Mr. Robert Mueller to testify because the impeachment inquiry’s foundation is outlined in the Special Counsel’s Report. See Report, ex., at 77.

The President of the United States committed impeachable acts when the President made efforts to remove the Special Counsel. On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called Attorney McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed. Id. at 85. Mr. “McGahn recalled that the President called him at home twice and on both occasions directed him to call Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as Special Counsel.” Id. 

1. The President’s conduct constituted an Obstructive Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 1503. The President’s action–ordering the removal of the Special Counsel–“would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” Id. at 87-88. Moreover, even if the removal of the Special Counsel “would not have prevented the investigation from continuing under a new appointee, the act had the potential to delay further action in the investigation, chill the actions of any replacement Special Counsel, or otherwise impede the
investigation.” Id. at 88.

2. There was a nexus between the President’s act of seeking to terminate the Special Counsel and a pending or foreseeable grand jury proceeding. See 18 U.S.C. § 1503. “[B]y June 17, 2017, the President knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.” Id. at 89. Furthermore, on June 16, 2017, the day before the President directed Mr. McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, “the President publicly acknowledged that his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor, tweeting, ‘I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!'” Id. at 89.

3. President Trump had the necessary intent for obstruction. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct – and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.” Id. “When the President learned of the appointment of the Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, he expressed further concern about the investigation, saying, ‘This is the end of my Presidency.’ The President also faulted Sessions for recusing, saying ‘[Y]ou were supposed to protect me.'” Id. (emphasis added). And after the media
reported on the President’s actions–to direct the removal of the Special Counsel, “the President denied that he ever ordered Mr. McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated and made repeated efforts to have Mr. McGahn deny the story. Those denials are contrary to the evidence and suggest the President’s awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper.” Id. at 90.

Madame Speaker, based on the foregoing, the initiation of an impeachment inquiry is proper, and such an inquiry should proceed in the interests of justice.

Sincerely,

/s/Matt Sullivan
Matthew Sullivan, Esq.