According to Mediate, Ty Cobb, former White House lawyer for Donald Trump, has made significant observations regarding evidence of obstruction of justice by the former president. Cobb’s insights came to light during an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett, where he discussed recent reporting that revealed Trump’s alleged instructions to one of his long-time aides, Molly Michael, regarding classified White House documents.
The particular point of interest in the interview was Trump’s reported directive to Michael: “You don’t know anything about the boxes,” in reference to classified documents he had stored at Mar-a-Lago. This instruction is pivotal because it forms the basis for obstruction of justice charges against Trump for obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve these documents.
Cobb’s interpretation of Trump’s actions is striking. He described Trump’s behavior as resembling that of a mob boss, issuing a direct order to an individual, Molly Michael, whom he had little reason to believe would lie for him but still expected her to do so. Cobb emphasized the distinction between loyalty and breaking the law, noting that Michael was unlikely to cross that line. Consequently, he saw Trump as directly ordering obstruction of justice, a fact that could strengthen the credibility of other witnesses testifying about obstruction.
“I hear Trump — really, for the first time in terms of the way this evidence has rolled out — speaking in the terms of a mob boss, giving a direct order to somebody that he probably should have no reason to believe would lie for him, but expecting [Michael] to do so,” Cobb said. “There’s a difference between loyalty and breaking the law, and that’s not a line she was going to cross. So it really is Trump directly ordering obstruction, and that will certainly be helpful to enhance the credibility of others who will testify about the obstruction.”
Cobb supported his viewpoint by referencing Yuscil Taveras, the former IT director of Mar-a-Lago, who entered into a cooperation agreement with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office in exchange for immunity. Cobb’s assessment aligns with the perspective of numerous legal commentators who have characterized Trump’s reported orders as resembling witness tampering, in addition to his mishandling of classified documents.
These revelations about Trump’s alleged actions add further complexity to his legal troubles, particularly in the context of obstruction of justice charges. The situation underscores the significance of these developments and their potential impact on ongoing investigations and legal proceedings involving the former president.
