Quantcast
Connect with us

Mueller concluded he couldn’t indict the president — but left the door open to criminal charges

Published

on

While President Donald Trump and his allies have cheered the “no collusion” and “no obstruction” mantras, the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report completely undermines those claims.

Mueller didn’t establish any charges of conspiracy between the President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, but he noted that he was not able fully to investigate all the leads in this arena, in part because many subjects of the investigation misled the special counsel about key details and materially prevented it from pursuing its work.

And the report lays out an expansive case for obstruction of justice by the president. Mueller noted that he believed from the outset that he could not charge Trump while he is in office, or even formally recommend a charge, because it would be unfair to do so when such a charge won’t be heard in court. But he emphasized that the report does not exonerate Trump and instead leaves the matter for Congress to take up, if it so chooses.

Reading ever-so-slightly between the lines, Mueller’s conclusion is clear: Trump obstructed justice, but charging him as a prosecutor would be inappropriate, so the proper course is to present the evidence to Congress.

But he also includes an ominous warning for the president. While Mueller believes it is up to lawmakers for now to handle an obstruction of justice charge, the report makes clear that any president could still be charged with obstruction of justice after Trump leaves office.

ADVERTISEMENT

“A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a president leaves office,” the report said in a footnote on page 390. “Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgement Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official’s conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment.”

“This is a striking footnote,” said former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal of the note, which was pointed out by reporter Adam Klasfeld. “It’s raising seriously the possibility of criminal liability when Trump leaves office. Amazing.”

The reported similarly noted: “a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.” At another point, it said: “Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President.”

ADVERTISEMENT

This all suggests that Mueller would likely think it would be appropriate — if Trump were to find himself no longer the president — for a prosecutor to bring an obstruction of justice case against him based on the evidence laid out in the report.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected]. Send news tips to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

FLASHBACK: Jeffrey Epstein accuser revealed there are tapes of famous men with underage girls

Published

on

A 2015 report is resurfacing on Raw Story as the Jeffrey Epstein trial begins and Washington and New York men fear being outed.

It appears that a series of QAnon Facebook groups and pro-Trump groups were the ones responsible for posting the story.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Fox News is so obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez they said her name three times as much as CNN or MSNBC

Published

on

It's clear that Fox News and other right-wing reporters are trying to create boogymen in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A new analysis by CNN media reporter Brian Stelter, revealed that the conservative network has said Ocasio-Cortez's name more than CNN and MSNBC combined.

"First, Ocasio-Cortez and her "Squad" mate Ilhan Omar have been talked about a lot more on Fox than on other cable news channels this year," Stelter wrote. "Second, the freshmen have been getting more attention on cable than seasoned leaders of the Democratic Party."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Congress should ask Mueller these specific questions about Trump’s involvement with Russia: Conservative columnist

Published

on

Conservative Never-Trump columnist Jennifer Rubin outlined the essential questions that Democrats should ask special counsel Robert Mueller in an op-ed for the Washington Post.

"Rather than engage in the normal scattershot questioning punctuated by speechifying, the House Judiciary Committee should assign its able attorney Norman Eisen to conduct the questioning," proposed Rubin. "Members could then follow up with additional questions.'

One question she proposed asking: "Mr. Mueller, the attorney general said you did not find 'collusion.' However, you did not look for collusion. Please explain what you looked for and how that differs from [Attorney General William] Barr’s assertion that you essentially cleared President Trump of collusion?"

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

Join Me. Try Raw Story Investigates for $1. Invest in Journalism. Escape Ads.
close-image