Mueller's Actions: Legal Or Not?

The question of whether Mueller broke the law stems from his handling of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections and the Trump campaign's alleged collusion. Mueller's appointment as special counsel was praised across party lines, but this changed when the investigation targeted Trump's campaign. Mueller's final report did not conclude that Trump committed a crime but also did not exonerate him. Some legal experts have since claimed that Mueller broke the rules for special counsels by including potential crimes that were not charged in his report. However, others argue that Mueller followed the rules, and federal regulations require special prosecutors to explain their decisions not to prosecute.

Did Mueller break the rules for special counsels?

Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump's alleged involvement was a highly controversial affair. The investigation, conducted from May 2017 to March 2019, resulted in charges against 34 individuals and 3 companies, 8 guilty pleas, and 1 conviction. However, it did not find evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. The report also did not reach a conclusion on the matter of obstruction of justice by Trump, which sparked accusations that Mueller had broken the rules for special counsels.

Mueller's Findings

Mueller's investigation found evidence of numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. It was discovered that the Russian Internet Research Agency's social media campaign supported Trump's candidacy while attacking Clinton's. Additionally, Russian intelligence hacked and released damaging material from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations. Despite these findings, the investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Accusations Against Mueller

Some have accused Mueller of breaking the rules for special counsels by not following the special counsel regulations. Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe claimed that Mueller went beyond the rules by including potential crimes that were not charged or decided in his report. Ratcliffe argued that Mueller violated the tradition of prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that are not charged.

Did Mueller Break the Rules?

However, legal experts and federal regulations contradict Ratcliffe's claims. University of St. Thomas law professor Mark Osler stated that federal regulations clearly include declinations, which is the decision to take no action. Ric Simmons of Ohio State University College of Law also pointed out that Mueller was offering evidence that could be used by the attorney general to decide on charges. Furthermore, Mueller was required by federal regulations to explain his decisions not to prosecute, and this explanation was to be provided to the attorney general, who then decided what to make public. Thus, it was the attorney general's decision to release any portion of the report, not Mueller's.

In conclusion, while Mueller's investigation did not find evidence of collusion and left the matter of obstruction of justice inconclusive, he did not break any rules for special counsels. Mueller followed the federal regulations and provided the required explanations for his decisions to the attorney general. The decision to release portions of the report and any potential violations lie with the attorney general, not Mueller.

Did Mueller find no collusion?

The Mueller Report, submitted in March 2019, concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. However, it is important to note that the report did not use the term "collusion", instead focusing on whether there was sufficient evidence to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy.

The report did find that there were numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. It also stated that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts. Despite this, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign "conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".

The report did not reach a conclusion on the question of obstruction of justice, but it did lay out facts on both sides. Mueller stated that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him". The decision on whether Trump obstructed justice was left to Congress and prosecutors who could decide whether to pursue charges after Trump left office.

Did Mueller find no obstruction?

The Mueller Report, submitted in March 2019, did not conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice. However, it also did not exonerate him.

The report found "multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations". Mueller's team refrained from charging Trump with obstruction because they abided by a Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. They also feared that charges would affect Trump's governing and possibly preempt a potential impeachment. Additionally, investigators felt it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime without charges and without a trial in which he could clear his name.

Mueller's report did find at least four acts by Trump in which all elements of the obstruction statute were satisfied. These included attempting to fire Mueller, directing White House counsel Don McGahn to lie and create a false document about efforts to fire Mueller, attempting to limit the investigation to future elections, and attempting to prevent Manafort from cooperating with the government.

Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reviewed the report and concluded that the evidence was "not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense".

Did Trump Jr. break the law?

Donald Trump Jr., the former president's eldest son, met with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, in July 2016. The meeting was also attended by Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, and then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Trump Jr. was told that Veselnitskaya had damaging information about Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 election.

Trump Jr. and other key figures involved in the meeting downplayed the gathering when questioned by Senate investigators. Trump Jr. told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the meeting was about a Russian adoption prohibition and that Veselnitskaya did not have any meaningful information to share. However, emails released by Trump Jr. show that he was told Veselnitskaya's information was "part of Russia and its government's support" for his father. In one email, Trump Jr. responded enthusiastically, saying, "if it's what you say I love it".

The question of whether Trump Jr. broke the law centres around the issue of foreign campaign contributions. Foreign nationals are prohibited from providing "anything of value" to campaigns, and the same law also bars the solicitation of such assistance. While this law typically applies to monetary campaign contributions, courts could consider opposition research to be something of value.

Legal experts are divided on whether Trump Jr.'s actions constitute a violation of federal campaign law. Some argue that the meeting could be construed as a breach of federal campaign law, as it is illegal for an American citizen to provide "substantial assistance" to a foreign national providing a "thing of value" to influence an election. Additionally, soliciting such a contribution, whether express or implied, is also illegal. In this case, the "thing of value" would be the damaging information about Clinton.

However, others argue that it is a stretch to call the meeting a violation of campaign finance laws, as there has been no case in history where information has been considered a "thing of value". They also point out that Trump Jr. does not hold a position in his father's administration and is therefore not required to disclose foreign contacts.

Ultimately, the question of whether Trump Jr. broke the law is complex and subject to legal interpretation. While there is no clear consensus among legal experts, the meeting and the surrounding circumstances have raised concerns about potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Did Mueller break the law by not subpoenaing the president?

The question of whether Mueller broke the law by not subpoenaing the president is complex and depends on various factors, including the scope of the investigation and the applicable laws. Here are some key points to consider:

Firstly, it is important to understand the role and powers of a special counsel like Mueller. A special counsel is appointed to investigate and prosecute specific matters of national significance, with the authority to issue subpoenas, hire staff, request funding, and prosecute federal crimes related to the investigation. In the case of Mueller, he was appointed to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, and allegations of obstruction of justice.

Now, regarding the specific question of subpoenaing the president, it is worth noting that Mueller had the power to issue subpoenas as part of his role as a special counsel. However, there are no reports or indications that he subpoenaed Trump during the investigation. The decision not to subpoena the president could be due to various strategic or legal reasons. One possible reason is that issuing a subpoena to a sitting president could have led to a lengthy legal battle and delayed the completion of the investigation. Additionally, Mueller may have believed that he had sufficient evidence or testimony from other sources to pursue his investigation without needing to subpoena Trump directly.

It is also important to consider the scope and focus of Mueller's investigation. According to the official report, the investigation focused on Russian interference, allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Trump's campaign and Russia, and obstruction of justice. The report concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. Additionally, while the report detailed multiple instances where Trump may have obstructed justice, Mueller declined to make a "traditional prosecution decision" due to the Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

In conclusion, while Mueller had the power to subpoena the president, the decision not to do so was likely a strategic choice based on the scope and focus of the investigation, as well as the applicable laws and policies regarding a sitting president. The investigation ultimately resulted in charges against 34 individuals and 3 companies, with 8 guilty pleas and a conviction at trial, but did not find conclusive evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Frequently asked questions