Latest in Obstruction of justice
Robert Mueller, as an employee within the executive branch, was not in a position to disagree with the Office of Legal Counsel’s past work on the clear statement rule.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone has sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler questioning the validity of the committee's investigation into, as the committee stated, "alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration." Cipollone stated that the White House "[does] not believe the investigation ...
Looking to the past actions of independent counsels and special counsels, Benjamin Wittes argues that the Mueller report’s interpretation of the clear statement rule is correct. There is additional Justice Department precedent that supports his case.
There is more to be said for Robert Mueller’s obstruction of justice theory than Mueller said in his report.
The report’s misapplication of the presidential clear statement rule exposed Trump to greater potential criminal liability than a proper analysis would allow, and raises questions about whether the obstruction investigation was properly predicated at the outset.
The special counsel’s legal reasoning regarding what it means for the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” locates Trump far outside the norm of presidential behavior.
Attorney General William Barr’s letter summarizing the Mueller report raises a number of questions—among them why Special Counsel Robert Mueller chose not to make a recommendation on obstruction of justice, and why Barr felt the need to step in.
The criminality alleged in this story is—if true—unsubtle and unambiguous, directly related to the president’s conduct as president and concerning matters of great import.
Between Friday’s New York Times story and other earlier material, we might be in a position to revisit the relationship between the “collusion” and obstruction components of the Mueller investigation.
We continue to believe that Barr’s stance is both radical and wrong.