The Department of Justice released Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report this morning, and journalists have spent the day scrambling to read and interpret the document. The New York Times, for instance, plans to run a 16-page special section on the report in tomorrow’s edition.
Both nonpartisan and partisan publications have claimed that the report states Trump did not commit the crime of obstruction of justice. Or, they’ve quoted officials like Attorney General William Barr, who said during a press conference today that the evidence in the report isn’t enough to prove that Trump committed any obstruction-related crimes.
What the report says
The Mueller report never explicitly said that Trump didn’t commit any obstruction-of-justice offenses. To the contrary, the report said that if that were the case – if Trump had definitely not committed any obstruction crimes – the investigators would say so, but “based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, (they) are unable to reach that judgment.”
Further, the report goes on to repeat several times: “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Why didn’t investigators reach a conclusion as to whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice?
Most criminal investigations are concluded with a decision as to whether or not to prosecute the subject of the investigation. Mueller and his team opted to not make any final judgment call when it came to prosecuting Trump on obstruction charges.
That’s the No. 1 reason why the report doesn’t reach a solid conclusion as to whether Trump committed an obstruction offense – Mueller and his team intentionally set out not to reach a conclusion at all in the report, focusing instead on what they found during the investigation.
Why did Mueller and his team do that?
This decision relied on an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that found presidents are immune from prosecution. The office concluded in 2000 that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted because doing so would violate the separation of powers and undermine the executive branch’s ability to function effectively.
The special counsel report added to the Office of Legal Counsel’s position by saying that a federal indictment “against a sitting president would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”
Aside from that, the Mueller team concluded that determining whether or not Trump committed a crime would create a number of issues. Since any such crimes couldn’t be prosecuted, the report suggested the president wouldn’t have a venue to address allegations against him.
“The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case,” the report said. “An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”
Does that mean that if a sitting president commits a crime, he will never be prosecuted?
No. Citing the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion, the report notes that presidents can be prosecuted after they leave office, whether that’s through resignation, impeachment or their term ending. Furthermore, while a president is in office and immune from prosecution, grand juries can continue to gather evidence related to potential crimes.
Contact Mollie Bryant at 405-990-0988 or bryant@bigiftrue.org. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.
An excerpt from this piece also ran in our newsletter, Hard Reset. Sign up for Hard Reset here.