Mueller And The Law: Did He Break It?

The Mueller investigation, led by special counsel Robert Mueller, was an inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election and the Trump campaign's alleged collusion. The investigation concluded in March 2019, with Mueller stating that the Russian government interfered in the election in sweeping and systematic fashion. While Mueller found no evidence of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, he did identify numerous links between the two, and determined that the Trump campaign expected to benefit from Russian hacking efforts.

The investigation also examined whether Trump obstructed justice, identifying at least four acts that could be considered obstruction, including attempting to fire Mueller and suborning perjury. However, Mueller declined to prosecute Trump for obstruction, citing a Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

Some critics, including Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe, have alleged that Mueller broke the rules for special counsels by including information about potential crimes that were not charged in his report. However, legal experts and federal regulations contradict this claim, stating that Mueller was required to explain his decisions not to prosecute.

Did Mueller break the law by not indicting Trump?

The question of whether Mueller broke the law by not indicting Trump is a complex one. Mueller's investigation into Trump's ties with Russia and potential obstruction of justice found significant evidence of wrongdoing, but ultimately, Mueller declined to indict Trump. The decision was based on several key factors. Firstly, Mueller cited constitutional limitations, specifically the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This guideline is designed to prevent interference with the president's ability to govern. Secondly, Mueller believed that indicting Trump without the ability to offer him a trial to clear his name would be unfair. Additionally, Mueller noted the possibility of a sealed indictment, but dismissed it due to the risk of leaks. While Mueller did not indict Trump, he also explicitly refused to exonerate him, stating that the report "does not exonerate" Trump.

The decision not to indict Trump has been highly controversial. Over 1,000 former federal prosecutors signed a statement asserting that, if Trump were not the president, his actions would have resulted in "multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice". They pointed to three types of acts described in the Mueller report that would satisfy all the elements for an obstruction charge: Trump's efforts to fire Mueller and falsify evidence, his attempts to limit the scope of the investigation, and his attempts to prevent witnesses from cooperating.

In conclusion, while Mueller's decision not to indict Trump may have been controversial, it was based on legal and ethical considerations. The question of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice remains a matter of debate, with some arguing that Congress should have the authority to take further action.

Did Mueller break the law by not revealing Trump's finances?

The Mueller Report, officially titled "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election", was submitted to the Attorney General on March 22, 2019. The report documented the findings and conclusions of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, and allegations of obstruction of justice.

The report concluded that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". However, it is important to note that investigators had an incomplete picture due to some communications being encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as false, incomplete, or declined testimony.

The report also identified multiple links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations. Mueller later stated that the findings of Russian interference "deserve the attention of every American".

While the report did not find evidence of criminal conspiracy, it did detail numerous instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump. These instances include Trump's efforts to fire Mueller, direct White House Counsel Don McGahn to lie and create a false document about efforts to fire Mueller, attempts to limit the investigation to future elections, and attempts to prevent Manafort from cooperating with the government.

Mueller declined to make a "traditional prosecution decision" about obstruction of justice, bound by the Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. Instead, he left the decision to prosecutors after Trump leaves office and to Congress, which has impeachment powers.

In his report and public statements, Mueller emphasised that the report did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. He reiterated that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime and that it would be unfair to accuse the president without the opportunity to clear his name in court. Mueller's statement that "the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing" was interpreted as a reference to impeachment.

Regarding Trump's finances, the report noted that Trump consistently said he had no business connections to Russia, despite his company trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. However, there is no specific mention of Trump's finances being revealed or concealed by Mueller in the report.

Therefore, while Mueller did not break the law by not revealing Trump's finances, he did identify multiple instances of potential obstruction of justice and left the decision on any further action to Congress and future prosecutors.

Did Mueller break the law by not interviewing Trump?

It is difficult to say whether Mueller broke the law by not interviewing Trump, as there is no legal requirement for the President to be interviewed. However, Mueller did seek to interview Trump for over a year, and Trump's lawyers resisted these requests. Ultimately, Mueller accepted written responses to his questions from Trump.

Mueller's report stated that Trump asserted more than thirty times that he could not remember information that had been asked, and that other answers were "incomplete or imprecise". Trump did not provide written responses to questions relating to obstruction of justice or events during the transition.

Mueller considered subpoenaing Trump's testimony but decided against it because it would likely result in protracted constitutional litigation that would delay the conclusion of the investigation. Mueller had also acquired the information he sought by other means.

Some have argued that Mueller should have subpoenaed Trump, as his written answers were inadequate. However, it is unclear whether a subpoena would have been successful, as Trump's lawyers may have challenged it in court.

Ultimately, the decision on whether to interview Trump was a judgement call on Mueller's part, and it is difficult to say whether he broke the law by not doing so.

Did Mueller break the law by not subpoenaing Trump?

It is unclear whether Mueller broke the law by not subpoenaing Trump. However, Mueller's decision not to subpoena Trump was influenced by several factors. Firstly, Mueller noted that Trump had refused to submit to an in-person interview, only providing written responses to questions related to his campaign's contacts with Russia. Additionally, Mueller's team decided against issuing a subpoena to compel Trump's testimony due to concerns that doing so would result in protracted constitutional litigation and delay the conclusion of the investigation. Furthermore, Mueller stated that he did not subpoena Trump "because of the necessity of expediting" the investigation. He believed that if he had subpoenaed the president, Trump would have fought the subpoena, leading to significant delays.

It is important to note that Mueller's investigation did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. Mueller's report detailed ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice as president and one episode before he was elected. Mueller's decision not to subpoena Trump may have contributed to the lack of conclusive evidence regarding obstruction of justice. However, the final decision on whether Trump obstructed justice rests with Congress, as Mueller stated that "the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."

Did Mueller break the law by not reaching a conclusion on Trump's obstruction of justice?

The Mueller Report, led by former FBI director Robert Mueller, was an investigation into the 45th U.S. president, Donald Trump, regarding Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The report was delivered to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019, and a redacted version was released to Congress and the public on April 18, 2019.

The report did not reach a conclusion about possible obstruction of justice by Trump, citing a Justice Department guideline that prohibits the federal indictment of a sitting president. However, it did not exonerate Trump, finding public and private actions "by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations".

Mueller declined to make a "traditional prosecution decision" about obstruction of justice. He was bound by the Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, and so he did not reach a legal conclusion about the facts. Mueller also believed that it would be improper to accuse Trump of committing a crime, as he did not want to preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct, such as impeachment.

Mueller's decision not to reach a conclusion on Trump's obstruction of justice was not a violation of the law. However, Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided on March 24, 2019, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Trump had committed obstruction of justice.

Frequently asked questions