First thoughts on Mueller's report

Despite the claims by President Trump and Attorney General Barr that the Mueller report clears Trump, it does not.   Not by a long shot.

It's true that there were no blockbuster new revelations.  Rather, the report paints a devastating picture of the man with presidential powers who has no respect for the law when it comes to his own actions.    And it's even worse than we knew.

He repeatedly asks his aides and associates to commit unlawful acts, to lie for him, to cover up -- to the point that not only White House counsel Don McGahn, but even a tough cookie like Cory Lewandowski sometimes refused Trump's order because it went too far in flouting the law.

Quoting from the Mueller report:  "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.  Comey did not end the investigation of Flynn . . . McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed but was instead prepared to resign over the President's order" (vol. 2, p. 158).

Chris Hayes had both Frank Figliuzzi and Neil Katyal on as guest analysts.  Figliuzzi is a former high official in the FBI and Katyal was in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and actually wrote the regulations for the Special Counsel position.

Katyal says that the first couple of pages in Mueller's report are the most important, because they outline what the Special Counsel can and can't do.   He repeats, in colloquial language, what Mueller is saying in those opening remarks:

   1.  "I would love to exonerate the President if I could find the evidence to do so.  I can't."
   2.  "If I found evidence that was really directly implicating the President, and he was guilty as sin, I'm not going to tell you -- because I'm bound by an Office of Legal Counsel opinion that says I can't indict a sitting president."

This is important, because we should consider Mueller's lack of charges of obstruction in this light.   Katyal clarifies:   "Mueller can't implicate the president in a crime [because a sitting president can't be indicted];   but he can exonerate a sitting president."   Katyal concludes:  "Mueller pointedly does neither."

And Figliuzzi agrees, saying that Mueller is telling us that he has the evidence of obstruction but he is constrained by the Department of Justice policy from indicting.  And Mueller also tells us that he is not going to make the case for indictment if he can't then indict.   Because that makes a charge, without there being a trial in which the person charged can mount a defense.

So what Mueller has done is to give us the evidence he found -- in exquisite detail -- and intends for Congress to deal with it in an impeachment process, if it so chooses.

Barr was wrong (as he has been on so much) when he said that Mueller left it to him to make the decision, which he then stepped in and said the President was cleared.   Congress can still do what it will do, regardless of the free pass Barr thinks he gave Trump.

More to come.

Ralph