,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
As AG Barr continues to claim that the President cannot be guilty of obstructing justice because of his Article II powers granted by the constitution, it is worth reading precisely what Mueller had to say on this subject: (thread)
“We were not persuaded by the argument that the President has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would CORRUPTLY obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise valid Article II powers” (emphasis added)
“...the term ‘corruptly’ sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others”
“...Direct or indirect action by the President to end a criminal investigation into his own or his family members’ conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability WOULD constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct.”
“So too would action to halt an enforcement proceeding that directly and adversely affected the President’s financial interests for the purpose of protecting those interests.”
So what does Mr Mueller suggest one should do when the President has obstructed justice? He explains in the footnote to this section:
“A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office...”
“...Impeachment would remove a President from office but would not address the underlying culpability or conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law...”
“...Impeachment is a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President.”
This is all from page 178, volume 2 of the #MuellerReport. I do not think Mr Mueller wrote those words lightly. While the AG says the President is cleared, the Special Counsel is intimating that impeachment is an insufficient penalty.
