[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – For almost two years, the lawyers and supporters of President Trump have said it was impossible to obstruct the investigation of Russia illegally, regardless of his intentions, because he had full authority over the forces of federal order as chief executive.
But in his highly anticipated report, Robert S. Mueller III rejected this general view of executive power. Mueller's team systematically dissected and repudiated these arguments, concluding in more than a dozen of the 448 pages of the report that laws restricting the process effectively limited how Mr. Trump could use his powers. presidential.
"The conclusion that Congress can enforce the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the president's powers is consistent with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no one goes beyond the law," did they write.
Nevertheless, Mr. Mueller concluded that it would be inappropriate at the moment for prosecutors to make a decision – in one way or another – because the analysis of evidence "could potentially lead to a judgment that the president has committed crimes ". He said that the Ministry of Justice has been half a century since the Constitution is interpreted as prohibiting the indictment of a president in office, so that Mr. Trump could not be the subject of a trial or have the opportunity to be elected while running the country.
The special advocate's reason left the door open for the possibility that after Mr. Trump's departure, prosecutors could re-examine the evidence gathered by Mr. Mueller and lay charges against the president. Attorney General William P. Barr attempted to close this door last month by announcing that, in his opinion, the evidence did not support the impeachment of Mr. Trump, regardless of the constitutional issues relating to the indictment of the presidents in office.
Mr. Barr did not detail his thinking except to note that Mr. Mueller had not found enough evidence to prove a criminal plot between the Trump campaign and Russia. But months before the president appointed him attorney general, Barr wrote a long memo to the Trump administration outlining the very arguments Mr. Mueller had rejected.
Mr Mueller's report, which Mr Barr made public on Thursday with some deletions, described Mr Trump's considerable efforts to undermine the investigation into Russia, thus portraying the damning portrait of a president. determined to use his power to protect his associates.
Much of the 11 episodes detailed by Mr. Mueller had been reported in the media. The president has always sought to install a loyalist to oversee the investigation; attempted to pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resume control of the investigation after being recused; and asked the F.B.I. director to end the investigation on his first national security advisor.
Mueller also revealed new presidential attempts to thwart the investigation. In mid-2017, Mr. Trump hired Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, in another attempt to prevent the investigation. Mr. Trump wanted Mr. Sessions to say that the Special Council's investigation was "very unfair" for the President and asked Mr. Lewandowski to convey the message. According to the report, Mr. Lewandowski never spoke directly to the Attorney General of the application.
Mr. Mueller relies heavily on White House lawyer Donald F. McGahn II of the White House, who told investigators that Trump had attempted to fire him in June. 2017. The report stated that Mr. McGahn had put an end to his efforts, "Deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he considered a potential Saturday night massacre", refers to the dismissal of Richard M. Nixon in 1973 from the special prosecutor who was investigating him. This ordinance, about which the two highest officials of the Justice Department resigned rather than execute, has helped undermine Nixon's political backing among Republicans.
The glaring difference between Mr. Mueller's raison d'être and the impression Mr. Barr created last month was central to Mr. Mueller's report. Mr. Barr had not explained why Mr. Mueller had refused to decide whether the evidence met the standard to indict Mr. Trump. Instead, he cited a fragment of Mr. Mueller's justification in what appears to be a misleading way.
In his letter, Mr. Barr wrote that Mr. Mueller had referred to "difficult problems" in law and in fact that prevented him from deciding the question of obstruction. Mr. Barr described this obscurity – although it was not specific – as an impediment to Mr. Mueller's ability to draw a conclusion "in one way or another".
In fact, Mr. Mueller's report contained a subtle but important difference to this impression. The special advocate said that these "difficult issues" prevented him from exonerating the president from illegal obstruction – and not to prevent Mr. Trump from accusing him of crime.
"If we had confidence, after a thorough investigation into the facts, that the President had clearly not obstructed justice, we asserted it," Mueller said. "However, on the basis of the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach this judgment. The evidence we have obtained about the actions and intent of the President raises difficult questions that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct has taken place. "
Instead, Mr. Mueller decided that it would be unfair to analyze the evidence for the moment, as that might allow him to conclude that Mr. Trump had committed a crime without possibility of a quick trial to determine if this was true.
"Someone who thinks they have been wrongly accused can use this process to try to clarify their name," Mueller wrote. "On the other hand, the prosecutor's judgment that crimes have been committed, but that no charges will be laid, offers no such contradictory opportunity to proceed with the erasure of his names before an impartial arbitrator."
He added: "Concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be exacerbated in the case of a sitting president, where the prosecution of a crime by a Federal prosecutor, even in an internal report, could have consequences beyond the scope of criminal justice. . "
[ad_2]
Source link