,
10 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
A note on these Mueller report highlights, via @oliviacpaschal & @maddiecarlisle2. Scroll down to item 8. It quotes Mueller’s report as to why he failed to secure Trump’s own testimony, either in person or (wrt obstruction) at all. Thread.
2. One concern Trump, his media lawyer Rudolph Giuliani & other associates mentioned often in public statements was their (that is, Trump’s) fear of a “perjury trap.” The idea was that lying to investigators could be used against a President guilty of nothing else.
3. Trump, of course, lies about everything. Fear of getting caught lying to investigators was not irrational on his part. It’s not a great argument for an investigator not to subpoena his testimony, something Mueller shrank from doing. Why?
4. The only reason given in Mueller’s report was “...the substantial delay that such an investigative step would likely produce at a late stage in our investigation.” That is, Mueller feared Trump would resist a subpoena and tie up his investigation while courts sorted it out.
5. It’s a plausible argument on its own, if not an entirely persuasive one (why wait until the end of the investigation to compel testimony from the party being investigated?). However, we should observe something else.
6. The same logic Mueller used to justify his not indicting Trump for obstruction of justice would apply to indicting him for any crime, including perjury. This could have reduced the incentive to compel Trump’s testimony, which could produce prima facia evidence of an offense
7...with which Mueller had already charged several other people. No testimony from Trump meant no opportunity for him to commit perjury — what his own lawyers were so afraid of — and thus, less trouble.
8. The question raised by Mueller’s decision not to recommend indicting Trump for obstruction of justice is whether a President should be above the law. That same question would have appeared with even greater clarity, had Mueller compelled his testimony and had Trump lied.
9. Mueller could have said in plain English that Congress is the appropriate forum to adjudicate alleged Presidential crimes. He didn’t do that, thought he dropped several broad hints. I don’t know why he didn’t.
10. I do have concern that the desire of an investigator under vituperative public attack for many months to avoid rocking institutional boats and wrap up his work may result, de facto, in acceptance of the President’s being above the law. [end]
