Thread by @marty_lederman

1/ Anyone who thought or hoped Bob Mueller would do anything different doesn't appreciate that he and staff are the only actors in town who've demonstrated in recent years how public officials ought to conduct themselves.

@walterdellinger @just_security @lawfareblog

2/ The contrast with Jim Comey and his FBI investigation of Clinton, and with Bill Barr and Donald Trump, couldn't be starker. Moreover, Mueller's report *does* speak for itself, and it speaks volumes: There's never been a more damning or more unequivocal account . . .

3/ ... of a president's aberrant conduct, dereliction of duty and violations of his constitutional responsibilities. Mueller's already explained why he cannot and will not make any pronouncements about whether Trump violated a statute.

4/ And, in any event, in the grand scheme of things that's *not* a terribly important question, for Trump's derelictions are far worse and more troubling than mere obstruction offenses.

@justinamash gets all of this--why can't the rest of Congress?

5/ There do remain important questions for Congress--especially the intel committees--to answer, concerning *why* Trump made such efforts to obstruct and *why* he continues to be so keen on Putin. And thus I hope that Mueller and/or the FBI soon start ..

6/ ... giving HPSCI full counterintel reports, and that HPSCI thoroughly investigates Trump's financial and other entanglements, if any, with Russia and other foreign powers. But the Report itself is extraordinarily damning even without those explanatory details.

7/ None of this means the House should necessarily impeach, given that the entire GOP Senate has abdicated its own constitutional responsibilities. But even short of impeachment, there's no reason the House can't accurately and sharply describe what Trump did ...

8 ... and condemn it in no uncertain terms, explaining just how inappropriate and damaging Trump's constitutional failings have been.