of a corrupt personal motive for arguably obstructive action through the President’s use of official power. Accordingly, the President’s conduct of office should not be chilled based on hypothetical concerns about the possible application of a corrupt-motive standard in this context. * * * In sum, contrary to the position taken by the President’s counsel, we concluded that, in light of the Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of- powers issues, we had a valid basis for investigating the conduct at issue in this report. In our view, the application of the obstruction statutes would not impermissibly burden the President’s performance of his Article II function to supervise prosecutorial conduct or to remove inferior law-enforcement officers. And the protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person—including the President—accords with the fundamental principle of our government that “[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 697; United States v. Nixon, supra. 1072 6/23/17 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office; see also 1/29/18 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office; 2/6/18 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office; 8/8/18 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office, at 4. 1073 2/6/18 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office, at 2-9. Counsel has also noted that other potentially applicable obstruction statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 1505, protect only pending proceedings. 6/23/17 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office, at 7-8. Section 1512(c)(2) is not limited to pending proceedings, but also applies to future proceedings that the person contemplated. See Volume II, Section III.A, supra. 1074 6/23/17 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office, at 1 (“[T]he President cannot obstruct . . . by simply exercising these inherent Constitutional powers.”). 1075 6/23/17 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office, at 2 n. 1. 1076 6/23/17 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office, at 2 n. I (dashes omitted); see also 8/8/18 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office, at 4 (“[T]he obstruction-of-justice statutes cannot be read so expansively as to create potential liability based on facially lawful acts undertaken by the President in furtherance of his core Article II discretionary authority to remove principal officers or carry out the prosecution function.”). 1077 See U.S. Br., United States v. Kumar, Nos. 06-5482-cr(L), 06-5654-cr(CON) (2d Cir. filed Oct.