Mueller Implies Trump Guilty of Obstruction

From the Washington Post:

Standing alone on stage in a room used for press conferences on the Justice Department’s seventh floor, Mueller said that if his office “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrongdoing.”

Mueller noted that his team found “insufficient evidence” to accuse Trump’s campaign of conspiring with Russia to tilt the 2016 election, but emphasized they did not make a similar determination on whether the president obstructed justice.

But if Mueller was trying to suggest Democrats could initiate impeachment proceedings, he also seemed to dash any hopes they might have had of doing so with him as their star witness. The special counsel — who noted he was closing up shop and formally resigning from the Justice Department — said he hoped the news conference would be his last public comments, and if he were compelled to testify before Congress, he would not speak beyond what he wrote in his 448-page report.

For the whole story, click here.

My Take:

Mueller was careful also to say Justice Dept. guidelines do not allow an indictment of a sitting president, and that to make an accusation against someone who could not then defend himself in court would not be fair. He is saying the president is guilty of obstruction of justice, that he cannot be criminally indicted for it while president, and congress can impeach if they want to do something about it. Congress should begin an impeachment inquiry without further delay.

First Take on Mueller Report

So now at least Attorney General William Barr's summary of the Mueller Report is before us. It was far-fetched to think Trump himself actually was on Putin's email list sending instructions to Vladimir's Moscow troll farm. That's the bar Trump set and from which he declares total vindication. I never expected that to be discovered, and I'm sure you didn't either. Numerous other obstruction events took place, though perhaps in Mueller's view not necessarily rising to the level of prosecutable--though not necessarily not, either, according to Barr's summary. He is neither indicted nor exonerated on those, according to Barr's summary of Mueller's report. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of probity, but it's not immediately getting cuffed, either.

So Trump can declare victory, and of course, he has. Hopefully now the Democratic investigations in the House can proceed with a tinge less breathless publicity, which is just how we and Speaker Nancy Pelosi want it. If they find damning evidence of a character serious enough to impress 20 Republican senators (the number that would need to vote for conviction were Trump to be impeached by the House and tried in the Senate) then all well and good. If not then let the 2020 election proceed on the lines of the issues, and let us get out our base and the moderate suburbanites whom Trump disgusts and the educated folks who are appalled, and women, along with an effective enough appeal to working class whites to get a few of them back (health care, social security, medicare, education, job training, some cultural sensitivity) and win the election on its merits. Trump hasn't actually accomplished much of anything that doesn't primarily help the wealthy and corporations.

If Reagan was the "Teflon President" Trump is the "Houdini President" for his escapes from conduct and predicaments that would have sunk any other politician.

Is Mueller Investigation a Witch Hunt?

Regarding some of the latest developments in Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election depredations and the Trump campaign, a friend recently emailed me that his conservative colleagues are saying that mixing in issues with prostitutes means it is "just a witch hunt." He wonders why part of the investigation has turned this way. Why, he asks, rather than focusing like a laser on Russia, which is a real and important thing, is it delving into "sexual silliness."

Here is my reply: 

Some of your conservative friends say the Mueller probe has gone off in error delving into sex issues and is thus a "witch hunt." Not. Mueller is not after that stuff because it’s salacious. He’s after criminality, and he’s after leverage so he can flip witnesses to go after the bigger fish. Think. If campaign money was used to pay hush money, federal crime. Think. Trump’s signature is not on the non-disclosure deal with porn star Stormy Daniels. Trump says he knows nothing about the deal. If both those things are true it's critical that (Trump attorney Michael) Cohen says he paid with his own money. If Cohen committed his client to a deal without telling him, that’s a crime. He can get disbarred. Cohen had a proclivity to record all his conversations. Mueller’s guys just raided to get a hold of those things. What else might be in there? Maybe things that will hang him out to dry. Maybe things incriminating Trump. Or maybe things that incriminate Cohen. As Trump’s personal attorney and fixer for many years what does he know about Trump’s shady or downright illegal doings? If he’s facing prison time what might he be willing to reveal about his boss? The investigation has gotten 5 guilty pleas and 19 additional indictments, including charges against 13 Russian meddlers. That’s no witch hunt. It’s a criminal and intelligence bonanza, and there is more to come. Impress that on your conservative colleagues. Guilty pleas haven’t been secured in witch hunts since the Inquisition.

My friend next asked whether raiding Cohen's papers, recordings and computer records might be a violation of attorney-client privilege. The answer is that no, it is not. The attorney-client confidentiality privilege does not extend to criminal conduct. In order for the FBI to even get such a search warrant it had to convince a federal judge that there is a strong likelihood of exposing criminality by the seizure of such materials. It isn't good news for Cohen-and possibly Trump-that the federal court was convinced that such evidence was likely to be secured.