,
7 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Comment by NPR’s @johnson_carrie on this morning’s #Lawfare panel on Mueller. How strong was the evidence for obstruction of justice, assuming the defendant was not immune from criminal indictment? Former US Attorney Chuck Rosenberg is pretty clear.
In a spirited #Lawfare discussion of impeachment, @Susan_Hennessey makes the point that if impeachment is reserved only for cases of bipartisan consensus, and a President cannot be indicted, President is therefore, and necessarily, above the law.
Panelists Rosenberg, @Susan_Hennessey @benjaminwittes @MargLTaylor discuss why Mueller never sought to compel Trump to testify. Wittes comes closest to critical issue: if a President can’t be indicted for obstruction, he can’t be indicted for perjury either. So why bother?
Obviously, assumption is that Trump would lie to Mueller if compelled to testify. Mueller’s stated reasons (he didn’t need testimony, a subpoena would take too much time) were, as Rosenberg says, “unpersuasive.” #Lawfare
.@benjaminwittes (as I understand him) spins a tale of holding Trump to account after he leaves office. This could include compelling him to testify at that time. One of the other panelists describes this as “delusional.” In any event...
Mueller’s judgement as to recommending prosecution for extensively documented obstruction would logically apply to any other criminal charge. The practical consequence is a President above the law, unless Congress acts. #Lawfare
Concluding remarks on #Lawfare podcast. @benjaminwittes criticizes Special Counsel regulations for not mandating report to Congress. And @Susan_Hennessey warns of danger (“Constitutional rot”) if Congress responds to Mueller’s report by doing nothing. [end]
