Mueller frustrates both sides on obstruction
WASHINGTON — The two central questions hung over former special counsel Robert Mueller’s congressional hearings Wednesday: whether President Donald Trump broke the law by trying to thwart a federal probe, and why Mueller refused to draw a conclusion from the evidence that his investigators gathered on that key point.
Mueller failed to deliver a clear answer to either question, frustrating both the Democrats, who hope to spotlight what they consider ample proof of Trump’s crimes, and the Republicans, who think the special counsel unfairly tarnished the president.
The questions Mueller faced throughout the day underlined the lingering confusion and debate about one of the most confounding decisions made by the special counsel’s prosecutors: that they could not assess whether the president engaged in a crime.
“Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else with obstruction?” Rep. Ken Buck, R-colo., a former prosecutor, asked Mueller during Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing.
“We did not make that calculation,” Mueller responded.
“How could you not have made the calculation?” Buck asked.
Mueller said he was constrained by two factors, reiterating a legal analysis explained in his 448-page report. Because of Justice Department legal opinions stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and broad “principles of fairness,” he concluded that his team had to stop short of drawing a conclusion about Trump’s actions.
Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-texas, said Mueller failed to follow the special counsel regulations, which required him to write a report for the attorney general explaining any decisions to prosecute or not prosecute.
“Nowhere in here does it say, ‘Write a report about decisions that weren’t reached,’” he said during the Judiciary Committee hearing. “You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided. And respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.”
Rep. Michael Turner, R-dayton, pounced on the sentence in Mueller’s report that said the special counsel could not “exonerate” the president.
“It’s a meaningless word that has no legal meaning, and it has colored your entire report,” Turner said during the House Intelligence Committee hearing.
Mueller said he included that statement to make Attorney General William Barr aware of the team’s summary view.
“He may not know it, and he should know it,” Mueller said.