We begin today’s roundup with Rebecca Roiphe at The Daily Beast who explains why Robert Mueller declined to find that the president violated the law, despite the evidence, and why the report at its core is an impeachment referral:
Attorney General Bill Barr and Special Counsel to the President Emmet Flood have made it clear that they consider this a fundamental failure on Mueller’s part. Mueller will likely explain that given the unique position of the president in the American constitutional system, his choice was not only defensible but also necessary. [...] Flood and Barr are wrong, because they, unlike Mueller, fail to understand that the special counsel’s job is different from that of ordinary prosecutors in a fundamental way. As Mueller explained in his report, the Office of Legal Counsel within DOJ has concluded that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution, stating “under our constitutional plan… only the Congress by the formal process of impeachment, and not a court by any process should be accorded the power to interrupt the Presidency or oust an incumbent.” Mueller took this seriously and adapted the normal prosecutorial function to facilitate this constitutional requirement.
Hundreds of former federal prosecutors agree:
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
Elie Honig explains why he signed on to the letter:
There are indications throughout the report, however, that Mueller would indict if he could. At times, Mueller seems to practically burst at the seams imposed by the DOJ policy, declaring that "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state" -- and then not so stating.
There is no way to know for sure where Mueller stands -- at least until he testifies in Congress. I suspect that, if asked, Mueller will avoid answering and instead will refer to his cipher-like declarations in the report. But there's another way to get at the answer: ask Mueller if he found "probable cause" -- the legal standard that a grand jury must find to return an indictment -- that Trump committed obstruction.
Meanwhile, the obstruction continues as the Trump administration blocks the legislative branch from exercising its rights as a co-equal branch of government:
The Trump administration ruled out turning over President Trump’s tax returns to the House on Monday and girded for a looming contempt of Congress resolution against Attorney General William P. Barr.
The actions ratcheted up the showdown between the executive and legislative branches, as Mr. Trump and his administration continued to resist the Democrats’ oversight efforts on multiple fronts.
On a final note, The New York Times editorial board calls out Trump for discouraging Robert Mueller from testifying:
Mr. Mueller has tentatively agreed to testify before Congress on May 15. That led President Trump, who has said he could have long ago fired the special counsel, to protest on Twitter on Sunday that Mr. Mueller “should not testify,” a reversal from his position just days earlier, when he said it would be up to Mr. Barr.
Enough. Leaving aside the legal question of who controls Mr. Mueller, whose service as special counsel will soon end, Congress is well within its rights to ask him to testify, and the proceedings would be edifying for lawmakers and the public alike.