Former Watergate Prosecutor Believes Case for Trump Obstruction Is 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt'
Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman bragged that he could convict Donald Trump of obstruction of justice, while explaining the White House paradox over invoking the Fifth Amendment, during a Wednesday interview with MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes.
“It really does look like you’ve got a plausible case for obstruction,” Hayes noted.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt,” Ackerman replied.
“That’s very confident of you,” Hayes noted.
“I’m very confident,” Ackerman admitted.
The former federal prosecutor explained that Mike Flynn was at the center of an obstruction case.
“He knows that Flynn lied. That lie is extremely material because it relates to what occurred during the campaign and the coordination between Russia and the campaign and Trump knows it,” Ackerman predicted.
“I think you’re going to have proof of the underlying crime and the cover-up because when Flynn pled guilty to the lie about sanctions, it related to the coordination between Russia and the campaign,” Ackerman continued. “So he’s got a lot to say.”
Hayes wondered about the whether legal advice to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and refuse to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination, might come up against the political reality of it looking like an admission of guilt, like in the Watergate scandal.
“That’s why they all went in and testified before the grand jury and got convicted of perjury,” Ackerman explained. “They were stuck between a rock and hard place.”
“Because they didn’t take the Fifth, you can’t take the Fifth because you look guilty,” Hayes observed.
Ackerman said there was no other option than invoking the Fifth Amendment.
“It is United States v. Nixon all over again where they forced President Nixon to produce tapes,” Ackerman noted.