On Thursday, Attorney General Bill Barr released a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the findings of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and related matters.
The text of the special counsel’s detailed, damning report is rightfully receiving much attention. Most analysis has nevertheless failed to appreciate the narrow channel Robert Mueller needed to navigate when crafting this report—and just how deftly he managed to do so.
Editor’s Note: Below are the executive summaries of the two volumes of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's final report. Volume I deals with links between Russia and the Trump campaign, while Volume II deals with potential obstruction of justice by President Trump. This article is available in audio format on the Lawfare Podcast: Special Edition:
The options for checking a president who abuses his power to the degree that Trump has are functionally impeachment proceedings or nothing.
Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.
Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and he did not conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice. But he did not exonerate the president either.
In examining whether the federal obstruction of justice statute applies to the president, Robert Mueller analogizes bribery and obstruction. But this is not supported by Office of Legal Counsel precedent.
The Senate has a responsibility to do so—but not an express constitutional obligation. And in a time of disregard for established institutional practice and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more.
Without a dramatic change in the underlying case law, President Trump’s suggestion of appealing an impeachment conviction to the Supreme Court is genuinely absurd. But it didn’t come out of nowhere.
This is an appendix to Lawfare's initial analysis of the Mueller report, listing instances of obstruction as described in the report. Read the analysis here.
The special counsel’s decision to stick closely to what he could criminally charge primarily exposes not the president, but the country’s failure to devise better institutions for such situations.
*/ /*-->*/
A redacted version of the 448-page Mueller report dropped yesterday, and there’s a lot to say about it. In this Special Edition of the Lawfare Podcast, Bob Bauer, Susan Hennessey, Mary McCord, Paul Rosenzweig, Charlie Savage and Benjamin Wittes discuss what the report says about obstruction and collusion, Mueller’s legal theories and what this all means for the president and the presidency.
How might things play out when a House committee issues a subpoena and, in response, the Trump administration refuses to turn over documents or allow an administration official to testify?
President Trump and the Trump Organization have filed a lawsuit against Rep. Elijah Cummings, the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the accounting firm Mazars USA LLP. The complaint addresses the committee's subpoena for and negotiation over the release of Trump's financial information.
The Justice Department released on Thursday morning a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. The Mueller team divided the report into two volumes: one on Russian interference and potential coordination with the Trump campaign, and the other exploring the president’s conduct in relation to the investigation. Each volume features its own executive summary, chronicling the investigation’s central findings and conclusions.
The California Consumer Privacy Act sparked speculation about whether California could apply for adequacy under the General Data Protection Regulation.
The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. Here’s an attempt to synthesize how the special counsel analyzed the evidence.
The Mueller report contains some interesting tidbits 0n "going dark" and bitcoin.
When he was first appointed, many, including me, were willing to give Attorney General Barr the benefit of the doubt. His recent performance raises significant questions about his fidelity to the rule of law.
Congress has two basic choices when someone refuses to comply with a subpoena: let it go or pursue contempt remedies.