Remember last year when Michael Wolff’s credibility was questioned for his first book on the Trump administration?
Jake Tapper Dismantles the One Thing That “Fire and Fury” Author Michael Wolff Needs Most: His Credibility (WATCH) https://t.co/HKG5JTdNBp
— RedState (@RedState) January 9, 2018
Well, he’s back with a second book titled, “Siege: Trump Under Fire” where he’s claiming that special counsel Robert Mueller “drew up a three-count obstruction of justice indictment against Donald Trump before deciding to shelve it”:
Mueller drew up a three-count obstruction of justice indictment against Trump before deciding to shelve it, according to @MichaelWolffNYC https://t.co/CdXo68yRfk
— Anthony DeRosa? (@Anthony) May 28, 2019
The Guardian has reportedly reviewed the document this claim is based on:
According to a document seen by the Guardian, the first count, under Title 18, United States code, Section 1505, charged the president with corruptly – or by threats of force or threatening communication – influencing, obstructing or impeding a pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.
The second count, under section 1512, charged the president with tampering with a witness, victim or informant.
The third count, under section 1513, charged the president with retaliating against a witness, victim or informant.
And according to the Guardian, this is the biggest story in the book:
The document is the most significant aspect of Wolff’s new book.
But we’re already seeing some throw cold water on it. Here’s Lawfare blog’s Susan Hennessey, who has been a major critic of the president:
Proceed with extreme caution on this one. The idea of Mueller getting a "draft indictment" doesn't make much sense, the documents as described in this article don't actually sound like a draft indictment, and even fragments of quoted language doesn't sound like a DOJ legal memo. https://t.co/x2tBuJGDoF
— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) May 28, 2019
She’s not buying it:
It's plausible the Special Counsel's office has some independent written product on whether president can be indicted (Ken Starr did) and it's possible there are memos on strongest obstruction arguments. But that's lightyears away from "draft indictments" that are "shelved."
— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) May 28, 2019
Of note, the spokesman for the special counsel’s office, Peter Carr, issued a strong denial to the Guardian before publication:
Notably, Peter Carr weighs in with an outright denial "The documents that you’ve described do not exist.” That doesn't mean there's nothing to it at all (see eg Buzzfeed denial), but it does mean we can presume that something is materially wrong in the reporting.
— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) May 28, 2019
“The documents that you’ve described do not exist”:
But Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, told the Guardian: “The documents that you’ve described do not exist.”
Questions over the provenance of the documents will only add to controversy and debate around the launch of Wolff’s eagerly awaited new book.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member