Thread by @maxbergmann

If Mueller follows the precedent from Jaworski’s report in Watergate, his report will just include facts; not fireworks.

Jaworski’s report never said Nixon obstructed justice or cited criminal statutes. It just laid out the facts. Yet it was called an “impeachment referral.” 1/

This is b/c the facts in the Jaworski report were really bad. So if Mueller’s report lays out really damaging facts but does not actually say that Trump obstructed. That does not mean Mueller failed to find obstruction. It means he was following Jaworski’s precedent. 2/

Jaworski laid out damaging facts and left it up to Congress to determine what conclusions to draw from those facts. 3/

So a key point to look for in the report is whether Mueller actually says that he is punting in making a conclusion on obstruction. If he doesn’t actually say he punted, then it s/d be up to congress decide what to do w/ the facts Mueller has uncovered. 4/

This WaPo story therefore c/d be an effort by Barr/RR to impugn a motive to Mueller that may not be there. IOW Mueller didn’t punt on obstruction b/c it was “difficult;” he punted b/c it is not his job to make a legal conclusion on POTUS. It’s congress’.
washingtonpost.com/world/national…