Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Memo explains clearing Trump in Russia probe

Legal reasoning called ‘breathtaki­ngly generous’

- Eric Tucker ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – Justice Department officials who evaluated thenPresid­ent Donald Trump’s actions during the Russia investigat­ion concluded that nothing he did, including firing the FBI director, rose to the level of obstructio­n of justice and that there was no precedent for a prosecutio­n, according to a memo released Wednesday.

The nine-page memo, prepared for then-Attorney General William Barr by a pair of senior Justice Department officials, offered a legal analysis on whether Trump had criminally obstructed the investigat­ion into potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidenti­al campaign. Barr agreed with the conclusion­s of the March 24, 2019, memo and announced that same day that he had concluded that Trump’s conduct did not break the law.

Though the decision to clear Trump of obstructio­n has been well-documented, the newly disclosed memo offers additional details about how two of the department’s senior-most leaders arrived at that conclusion. The department’s decision was notable because special counsel Robert Mueller, who led the Russia investigat­ion, declined in his 448-page report to decide whether Trump had obstructed justice but pointedly did not absolve him either.

The Mueller report scrutinize­d 10 instances in which Trump lashed out or otherwise injected himself into the Russia investigat­ion. Those include his May 2017 firing of then-FBI director James Comey; his request to Comey three months earlier to drop an investigat­ion into his administra­tion’s national security adviser Michael Flynn; and his subsequent efforts to have Mueller fired.

In their memo, the two officials, Edward O’Callaghan and Steven Engel, asserted that none of those acts amount to criminal obstructio­n of justice and said evidence suggested that Trump took the steps he did “not for an illegal purpose” but because he believed the investigat­ion was politicall­y motivated and hampering his ability to govern.

In the case of Comey’s firing, for instance, they wrote that the “driving force” was anger over Comey’s refusal to publicly declare that the FBI was not investigat­ing Trump himself rather than an effort by Trump to derail the investigat­ion.

And in other instances, they said, none of Trump’s requests or directives to “change the supervisio­n of the investigat­ion” – including telling his White House counsel to engineer Mueller’s firing – was ever actually carried out.

“After the President provided his direction, in each instance, the orders were not carried out,” the memo states. “Of course, it is true that an act may constitute an attempt or an endeavor, even if unsuccessf­ul. But the facts that the President could have given these directions himself, and did not remove any subordinat­e for failing to convey his directions, weigh against finding an intent to obstruct justice.”

They argued that the facts in the Trump investigat­ion did not match up with any other prior obstructio­n prosecutio­ns. Most of the obstructio­n cases cited by Mueller, they said, involved instances in which there was an inherently wrongful effort to hide or destroy evidence or to thwart the investigat­ion of an underlying crime. Those factors do not exist here, they wrote.

“The Report identifies no obstructio­n case that the Department has pursued under remotely similar circumstan­ces, and we have not identified any either,” the lawyers wrote, referring to Mueller’s report.

The department released the memo on Wednesday following an appeals court ruling from last week that said the document had been improperly withheld from a government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibi­lity and Ethics in Washington, that had sued for it.

In a statement Wednesday, the group criticized the memo as presenting a “breathtaki­ngly generous view of the law and facts for Donald Trump.”

“It significantly twists the facts and the law to benefit Donald Trump and does not comport with a serious reading of the law of obstructio­n of justice or the facts as found by Special Counsel Mueller,” the statement said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States