Although interpretations will vary, it sounds as though there was, in fact, a bombshell in Robert Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
The “Holy Grail”, as it were, for Democrats was to somehow get the former special counsel to admit that he would have indicted Donald Trump were it not for department regulations forbidding a sitting US president from being charged with a federal crime.
Ironically, it was a Republican who elicited what some will say was just that admission from Mueller. In a frustrated exchange, Rep. Ken Buck asked if there was “sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone anyone else of obstruction of justice?” Here is the clip:
(If the video does not load, please refresh your page)
“We did not make that calculation”, Mueller responded. “How could you not have made that calculation?”, Buck pressed. “Because of the OLC opinion indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president”, Mueller repeated, adding that “one of the tools a prosecutor would use, is not there”.
After another exchange, the congressman asked “You believe you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” “Yes”, Mueller replied, flatly.
Again, interpretations will vary and there’s a sense in which Mueller was simply repeating what he’s said before about the extent to which OLC regulations prevented him from making a determination, but there seems to be some ambiguity in the Mueller-Buck exchange. That is, Mueller certainly seemed to come as close as he’s ever come to saying that the special counsel’s office would have indicted Trump if they could have.
And, importantly, Mueller explicitly said Trump can still be indicted for obstruction once he leaves the White House.
Ted Lieu pursued a similar line.
It got worse from there. Asked if “it’s fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation”, Mueller said “that’s generally a summary”.
In other words: “Yes”. The president compelled staff to falsify documents tied to an ongoing criminal investigation. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that’s obstruction.
The three clips above will almost surely feature heavily in the news cycle for the next couple of days. Fortunately for the president, this is an administration with a penchant for making the news, which means today’s hearings will likely be replaced by some new bombshell, crisis or both within 48 hours.
Later, Mueller attempted to clean this up with a “clarification” ahead of his testimony before the House Intelligence committee:
Somehow, one imagines that’s not going to be enough to “correct” the record.
Boom
The obstruction crimes are blatant and obvious. The big take away I got relating to the Russian investigation is all the questions related to the Steele Dossier and Mueller not being able to discuss it. If the report was proven false, Mueller’s response would have been different. There is a high probability that the Steele Dossier was at least substantially prove to be accurate and there are numerous intelligence community special operations presently underway that cannot be compromised. There is much more to the story, the question is if the American public gets to know what it is eventually.
I agree with Hopium’s comment that Mueller’s testimony shows clear obstruction from the POTUS . Now the House must take up impeachment, despite political fallout from a probable unsuccessful Senate trial. To not prosecute a known crime would be an obstruction of justice from the House members.
Well, the Justice Department isn’t going to indict, and the Southern District of New York isn’t going to indict, and Nancy Pelosi sure as $#!t isn’t going to indict, and Republicans don’t care and independents are looking forward to the N.F.L. so none of this matters. All of this will be forgotten in two days.
And again, I completely agree.
democrats are happy. republicans are happy. trump is happy. everyone happy expect me, who is quite disillusioned.
Re: Trump’s love affair with Wikileaks:
“Problematic would be an understatement”
-Robert Mueller
Could we not indict the Republican Senate leaders who refuse to indict Trump?? They are as much to blame as anyone for whatever happens as a result of his horrible presidency.