Mueller had everything he needed to charge Trump with obstruction, but did not

The decision not to accuse Trump of crime means that the president and his allies can claim a clear victory after two years of investigation, but the evidence reunited by Mueller and the opportunity for Congress to investigate this case suggest that conclusions about the president's actions could still be drawn.

& # 39; Let Flynn go & # 39;

The first time Mueller explains a circumstance in which Trump could have obstructed justice, he goes off.

Trump urged Comey to "let Flynn go" – three times reformulated differently, notes Mueller – and it was clear that the president was seeking an end to the FBI's investigation of Flynn, Mueller wrote. This checked the box for the first part of the three part legal test relating to the obstruction.

In the second part of the legal test, Mueller also succeeded, finding evidence that Trump realized that Flynn could be criminally prosecuted for lying when he had the conversation with Comey.

With respect to personal interest in the investigation, the third part of Mueller's legal test, Mueller has not found any evidence that Flynn possessed any information detrimental to the president, thus leaving the company in danger. Trump's urge to put an end to the investigation. However, Trump still had a personal interest in the investigation because he was motivated by the way in which the results of the investigation in Russia could affect his election victory in the constituency.

Prosecutors have learned from a number of witnesses that Trump "viewed investigations of Russia as a challenge to the legitimacy of his election," Mueller wrote.

Mueller said that he had found that Comey was telling the public the events reported as truthful – not Trump's.

To turn Comey

Mueller also uncovered evidence that the dismissal of Comey in May 2017, the cause of his appointment as a special advocate, was likely to undermine the investigation.

Trump at the time, as before, knew that lawsuits could be filed against Flynn and was motivated by Comey's refusal to publicly declare that Trump was not under investigation.

In his legal analysis, Mueller completely refutes Trump's claim that he would have dismissed Comey for his bad work, particularly with regard to how the FBI director managed the end of the investigation into the e-mail from Hillary Clinton. This was not "substantiated by the evidence," Mueller writes.

Some of the evidence "indicates that the president wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign," added Mueller.

Leading your lawyer

Mueller's team is quite clear about the multiple orders given by Trump to McGahn to rid him of Mueller. Trump has also met all the legal requirements of obstruction in this situation, Mueller said.

"As for the return of Comey by the president, the attempt to dismiss the special advocate would constitute an act of obstruction if it would naturally impede the investigation" and the work of the grand jury, the report says.

Trump ordered McGahn to have Mueller dismissed – a step that would clearly impede the work of the special advocate's office – but McGahn would not do it.

Like Comey, McGahn was a credible witness, while Trump was not, Mueller said.

"You have to do that – you have to call Rod," Trump told McGahn, and mentioned "knocking out Mueller" on the phone with McGahn during a phone call in May 2017, according to the report.

Finally, about Trump's intention, there was "substantial evidence," said Mueller, who explained that he had explained how the president wanted to fire Mueller because he was doing the same thing. # 39; object of an investigation for obstruction.

Lobby the witnesses

Mueller also explained how Trump had tried to put pressure on Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and another anonymous person, whose name had been concealed due to an ongoing investigation, not to give any information to against him.

If Mueller had filed a lawsuit in this situation, the one that concerned the president's public remarks at the trial of Manafort could have harmed a jury, would have been the strongest, according to the report.

Manafort was convicted by a jury of eight financial crimes unrelated to his work for Trump. He then pleaded guilty to other charges related to his lobbying in Ukraine and agreed to cooperate with the investigators before lying to them several times.

"The evidence regarding the president's conduct towards Manafort indicates that he had the intention to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government," Mueller wrote.

"Some evidence leads to the conclusion that the President intended to influence, at least in part, the jury," the report adds, before acknowledging to the president that he felt really bad for his former president of campaign in process.

Role of New Attorney General William Barr

Mueller's own words on the 182-page analysis of the obstruction inquiry refute the Attorney General's assertions that Mueller had found "evidence on both sides of the issue" and could not not decide on "difficult" questions of law and fact "in the question of obstruction. .

Overall, the evidence in many circumstances that Mueller examined has proven to be favorable to a case, and Mueller set out his views in the report on "difficult issues" that the Department of Justice should to solve if Mueller had chosen to pursue.

At times, Trump was motivated to obstruct the Russian investigation. At other times, Trump wanted to impede Mueller's investigation of obstruction of justice.

The pieces were all there. Yet, Mueller has not acted.

Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have chosen not to accuse the president of obstructing crime.

"Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Advocate's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes we examined did not constitute a legal impediment, we did not rely solely on this to take our position. decision, "Barr said at a press conference Thursday morning.

"Instead, we accepted the legal framework of the special advocate for our analysis and evaluated the evidence presented by the special advocate to reach our conclusions," he added. .

Continuation of a sitting president and rules of the DOJ

According to his report, the fact that the evidence was not conclusive was not at the heart of Mueller's decision not to prosecute. The special council, even if he had wanted it, could not sue a sitting president.

"This office has accepted the legal conclusion (from a Ministry of Internal Justice) in order to exercise prosecution jurisdiction," Mueller wrote, citing the policy of the Legal Advisory Bureau. Even putting aside OLC, Mueller added, "We have acknowledged that a federal criminal charge against a sitting president would put a burden on his ability to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes to remedy presidential faults".

Moreover, Mueller disagreed with Barr's previous assertion that the president as chief of the executive was not in a position to impede justice – another important constitutional issue when & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; He was looking into potential business. Mueller was also totally at odds with the legal defenses that Trump's lawyers presented when they were trying to convince the special advocate not to accuse the president, the report said.

So, would prosecutors have filed a lawsuit for obstruction if Trump had not been president?

"Here's the problem," said Elie Honig, an analyst at CNN, a former federal prosecutor. "Yes, but they will not charge the president."

"It is a case of serious obstruction."