And he could still be indicted when he leaves office, if the statute of limitations has not run out -- which might be the case if he wins and serves out a second term.
Mueller chose to follow that ruling by the Department of Justice which appointed him and for which he worked, but he also pointedly laid out his reasoning and a road map for Congress to follow if they chose to bring impeachment. Further, he provided all the evidence he had gathered, backed up by the sources and details, so that Trump could be prosecuted once he is out of office.
And he explained in the report that, by doing so, he was preserving the evidence while it was still available and fresh in people's memories. That at least implies that he expects there might be a future indictment and trial.
So now having Mueller testify before the House Judiciary Committee becomes imperative (with Democrats imperatively for and Republicans flip-flopping about it). Trump himself is flipping all over the place: first, he "would leave the decision to the Attorney General"; then he tweeted that it was unnecessary, that Mueller had already said all he needed to say in the report; then he became vehemently opposed, blaming the Democrats for wanting to have a "redo" because they didn't like it that Mueller didn't find what they wanted to destroy Trump. Then he seems to be back-tracking again. It's hard for his staff to keep up with his position from one hour to the next tweet.
President Trump's saying that he was cleared of obstruction is simply misstating the facts. Mueller's report clearly states that he was following the OLC policy that a sitting president could not be indicted. But Mueller also added that, if he could clear him of claims of obstruction, he would so state. But, he wrote, "I cannot."
The former federal prosecutors' letter states, in part:
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. . . . Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
Former Rep. Donna Edwards, speaking on MSNBC, said: 'I'm a mediocre prosecutor myself; but even I believe I could prosecute this case and probably win.'
Those signing the letter include many prominent Republicans as well as Democrats. Next to a decision by a federal court, this is probably the strongest challenge to the position of the Attorney General in "clearing" the president when he said there is not enough evidence to charge obstruction.
So it does seem imperative that the man who did the investigation and who wrote the report should testify before Congress and the American people -- especially since his report and his intentions have been so obviously distorted that he wrote a letter to the AG objecting.
Ralph
PS: Breaking news: A former assistant to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani (who is a former federal prosecutor) has told CNN that even Giuliani (now Trump's public-promoter-in-chief) would have indicted someone for obstruction based on the evidence in the Mueller report.
No comments:
Post a Comment