There are a lot of issues with the conclusion of the special counsel probe into what Trump called the “Russia thing.” I will discuss a couple of mine.
The special counsel was tasked to determine whether people in Trump’s campaign conspired with Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump or others were guilty of obstruction of justice (in the pursuit of this work).
Attorney General William Barr told us Sunday that Mueller found the Trump campaign innocent of conspiracy (collusion) with the Russians and did not make a recommendation about the obstruction issues. However, Barr made the decision—announced Sunday—that Trump would not be charged with obstruction.
Trump had publicly stated that he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him. Many had wondered how Barr would specifically help the President. We found out Sunday. With questionable authority, Barr declared Trump innocent of obstruction of justice.
To those paying attention, this was not a surprise. Barr had obviously campaigned for the position of Attorney General last June in a long memo objecting to the Mueller probe. In his 19-page memo, he viciously criticized Mueller, providing legal talk for what Trump had been arguing.
Among other things, he argued that Trump did not obstruct justice because Mueller had made up a crime to investigate. And further, a sitting president could not be charged with obstruction. Therefore the President should not have to answer questions from the Mueller team.
And the rest is history as they say. Trump nominated Barr, and the Republicans approved him, with most Democrats voting no. Then Barr declared Trump innocent.
Another issue that disturbs me is the generally accepted idea that a president cannot be indicted. Barr argues that this issue was not at play in Mueller’s non-decision and Barr’s decision. But we wonder.
The no-indictment rule is not in the Constitution. It is not in an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not in a statute. And it is not in an agency regulation. It is merely a Department of Justice policy from the Watergate era and again in the 1990s after the Starr investigation of Bill Clinton.
Recently Ken Starr, the prosecutor in the Bill Clinton case, said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He and his team concluded that President Clinton was subject to indictment and criminal prosecution, although an imprisonment punishment might have to wait until after he leaves office.
On another issue, Bill Clinton was interviewed by the Starr team. Why didn’t Mueller force Trump to answer questions under oath? Some experts say it may be because Trump’s lawyers probably informed Mueller that Trump would plead the fifth, which is his right. If so, I must disagree with Mueller. That issue should have been forced—as Starr did with Clinton.
There are many more issues that might be cleared up by the full Mueller report. Getting that report, of course, is the first real issue.