Alex Whiting

An op-ed by Ryan Goodman and Alex Whiting. With news that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has begun using grand juries to conduct his investigation, there are now questions about where it might all lead. Of course, it might lead nowhere: at the end of the investigation Mueller might conclude that the evidence is insufficient to warrant criminal charges. Or it might lead to somewhere significant: Trump campaign and administration officials being charged with crimes related to Russian interference with the U.S. presidential election or with other crimes discovered during the investigation.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Tuesday that President Donald Trump “weighed in” on a misleading statement issued by his son last month in response to reports that he met in 2016 with a Russian attorney, an acknowledgment that criminal law experts say opens the president and his attorneys up to serious questions about the president’s desire to quash the Russia investigation...Nonetheless, the president’s role could be fodder for special counsel Robert Mueller as he explores whether Trump obstructed justice to undermine the larger investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia, said Alex Whiting, a Harvard Law School professor and former federal prosecutor. “Based on what we know now, it likely does not itself rise to the level of obstruction of justice, but it shows Trump's state of mind and could be relevant to proving Trump's intent when he more directly tried to interfere with the ongoing investigation," Whiting said, pointing to Trump's decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey.

Even if President Donald Trump did not break any laws during the 2016 election campaign, lawyers say his actions since the election are creating their own legal conundrum...Taking a hand in crafting his son's statement to media outlets doesn't necessarily fit that description — unless there's clear proof Trump did so with intent to hide the truth from investigators, explained Harvard professor and former federal prosecutor Alex Whiting. "If this was all you had, then I don't think many people would say, 'Oh, this rises to the level of obstruction of justice,'" Whiting said of Trump's involvement in messaging.

An interview with Alex Whiting. Reporting suggests that the Special Counsel is probing Trump's financial ties to Russia, a grand jury is issuing subpoenas, and 10 senior FBI officials could testify in Mueller's obstruction case.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly denied colluding with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign. Yet, the revelation of a meeting last year—between his son, his campaign chairman, his son-in-law and a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government—suggests that the question of collusion is an open one; according to emails arranging the meeting, Trump’s son Donald Jr. was aware of that promise and said in response, “I love it.” And, of course, special counsel Robert Mueller is still investigating this very matter... [Alex Whiting]: Collusion will likely come in the form of the solicitation or encouragement of any improper assistance to the Trump campaign from a foreign source, in this case from Russia.

An op-ed by Alex Whiting. The criminal investigations of the Trump administration seem largely to have followed two separate paths: on the one hand, whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference with the election, and on the other hand whether President Trump obstructed justice. Commentary has alternated between these inquiries, but has not always connected the two. In part that is because of the piecemeal way the evidence has emerged. In part it is because the two inquiries have distinct legal elements and can, in fact, exist separately. However, at a moment when our attention is focused on the question of possible collusion, it is worth remembering this obvious point: the two investigations are, in fact, very much connected.

James Comey may not have added much new detail in testimony on Thursday about his one-to-one meetings with Donald Trump but he did add something: he set the scene, and law professors say that could be a missing piece in an obstruction of justice case against the president. Mr Comey, the former director of the FBI, gave three hours of evidence in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, describing personally for the first time the series of exchanges with the president that led to his sacking last month...Alex Whiting, a Harvard Law professor and former federal prosecutor, said the oral testimony gave new and legally significant insight into how Mr Comey interpreted the president's words in the moment. "The critical aspect of an obstruction case is assessing the intent of the speaker and whether it was corrupt," Mr Whiting said.

An op-ed by Alex Whiting. James Comey’s written and oral testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee raises many legal, ethical, and political questions that will have to be pondered in the coming days. But focusing just on the specific question of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, what are the likely next steps in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation? The answer is that Mueller will first pursue all available investigative avenues to corroborate (or not) Comey’s account before deciding whether to seek an interview of President Trump himself.

With former FBI director James Comey’s hearing Thursday, we heard it straight from the horse’s mouth that Comey interpreted President Trump’s “hope” that the FBI drop its investigation into then-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s contacts with Russia as a directive. This immediately brought up the question of whether Trump was obstructing justice by essentially ordering Comey to drop the investigation. I asked Just Security's Alex Whiting, who was a federal prosecutor before his career as a Harvard Law professor, and Duke University law professor Samuel Buell for their two cents..."I think Comey’s testimony, both written and oral, strengthened the case that Trump’s February 14 request to drop the Flynn investigation constituted obstruction."

An interview with Alex Whiting. Did the president of the United States pressure the director of the FBI to put his personal reputation ahead of national security? Did Donald Trump know what he was saying when he exchanged with James Comey on February 14 about his national security advisor's ties to Russia? As Comey testifies before the Senate intelligence committee, we ask if this - as Barack Obama's head of national intelligence said this week – could be bigger than Watergate.

The Syrian war is probably the most documented conflict ever, but with no end in sight, the civilians and activists who have collected millions of photos, as well as thousands of videos and casualty lists, are quickly losing faith in international accountability mechanisms...Evidence gathering has become much more sophisticated, says Alex Whiting, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in international criminal prosecutions. For example, SJAC developed an in-depth database to ensure that each piece of data is verified, classified, protected and linked to existing evidence.

Rodrigo Duterte is not afraid of the International Criminal Court — or so he likes to say. Asked about the possibility of an ICC investigation, the Philippine president dismissed it with a curse. When a critic vowed to submit evidence of possible crimes against humanity, he told him to go ahead...“I think that the situation is ripe for the prosecutor to start an investigation,” said Alex Whiting, a professor at Harvard Law School who previously worked in the Office of the Prosecutor. “I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner.”

The special prosecutor was convinced that Congress was on the verge of sabotaging his politically charged investigation—one that led straight into the White House and threatened to end with a president’s impeachment. And so he went to lawmakers on Capitol Hill with a plea: Do not grant immunity to witnesses in exchange for their testimony if you ever want anyone brought to justice...It would not be a surprise if other Trump advisers, beyond Flynn, now come forward to demand immunity in exchange for testimony, Alex Whiting, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in criminal prosecution issues, told me—especially, Whiting says, because Mueller, by reputation, seems likely to conduct an aggressive criminal investigation that could last for years. “The shift into a criminal investigation could definitely make a difference,” Whiting says. “As more people get lawyers, the advice of the lawyers is always going to be to stay quiet and try to get immunity for yourself.”

An interview with Alex Whiting. Over the past few months, many revelations have surfaced surrounding the Trump administration. While the nature of those revelations varies, one name in particular, has repeatedly emerged in reporting: Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn. Flynn was an adviser to Trump’s campaign and served as national security adviser before he was forced to resign in February...So if Flynn resigned in February, why does his name keep popping up in headlines? How do Flynn’s actions fit into the larger story surrounding possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia?

An op-ed by Alex Whiting. The news that Donald Trump asked the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, and the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign to influence the presidential election may, or may not, contribute to the overall emerging picture of obstruction of justice by the president. This revelation underscores several important points about the investigation.

An interview with Alex Whiting. The appointment of a special counsel to investigate President Trump’s ties to Russia seemed to elicit a bipartisan sigh of relief. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller will lead the independent inquiry, even as the congressional probe continues. Mueller’s involvement could bring much needed answers about Russia to the forefront, but it could complicate things, too.

An interview with Alex Whiting. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is taking over the investigation into potential links between President Trump's campaign and Russian officials. WSJ's Shelby Holliday explains just how broad his authority can go.

An op-ed by Alex Whiting. There has been considerable discussion over the last week about whether President Donald Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice when he fired James Comey as director of the FBI. Caution has been important in this debate because obstruction of justice is a difficult crime to prove, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal prosecution is an onerous one, and not all the facts are known.

Democrats and even some Republicans are warning that President Donald Trump may be in jeopardy if reports prove accurate that he allegedly interfered with an FBI investigation....Alex Whiting, a Harvard law professor and former federal prosecutor, told NBC News that the account of the Comey meeting was a "game changer" because it could show that Trump not only acted inappropriately but also tried to block an ongoing probe. "It's quite hard to find a proper purpose for that conversation," Whiting said.

Reports that Donald Trump asked former FBI director James Comey to shut down a federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn have added weight to a possible obstruction of justice case against the president, law professors say..."It was hard to make the obstruction of justice case with the sacking alone," said Alex Whiting, a Harvard Law professor and former federal prosecutor. "The president had clear legal authority and there were arguably proper, or at least other, reasons put forward for firing him. But with this development, that argument becomes much harder to make."

An interview with Alex Whiting. The Washington Post broke the story: US intelligence has been sent into a mad scramble after Donald Trump gave the Russian foreign minister and ambassador intel about the IS group that came courtesy of an ally of Washington. Does the most powerful nation on the planet have a president who can't keep a secret?