“For nearly two years, President Trump’s lawyers and defenders have argued that it was impossible for him to illegally obstruct the Russia investigation, no matter his intentions, because he has full authority over federal law enforcement as head of the executive branch. But in his highly anticipated report, Robert Mueller rejected that sweeping view of executive power,” the New York Times reports.
“Still, Mr. Mueller concluded that it would be inappropriate for now for prosecutors to make a decision — one way or the other — because analyzing the evidence ‘could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes.’ He reasoned that the Justice Department has for a half-century interpreted the Constitution as barring the indictment of a sitting president, so Mr. Trump could not get a trial and a chance to clear his name while he is running the country.”
“The special counsel’s rationale left the door open to the possibility that after Mr. Trump leaves office, prosecutors could re-examine the evidence Mr. Mueller gathered and charge the president. Attorney General William Barr tried to slam that door shut last month when he announced that in his view, the evidence did not support charging Mr. Trump regardless of any constitutional issues about charging sitting presidents.”Save to Favorites