First, what would be in Mueller’s report?
28 CFR 600.8© Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.
So the report only includes two topics:
- Why he prosecuted someone
- Why he didn’t prosecute someone
Why he prosecuted someone will be in the indictments. Granted, some information to date is redacted, but that’s just because Mueller does not want to tip off other targets, or it has classified information. Will we see unredacted indictments released? If it relates to Trump and Trump remains unindicted, we may not.
And we already know why he may decide not to prosecute Trump: DOJ guidelines.
The most important part of anything Mueller has to report will be in the indictments, and Mueller has chosen to use “speaking indictments” in the past.
The AG also has responsibilities:
28 CFR 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -
(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
BUT this is the part where Trump is considering privilege:
28 CFR 600.9 (c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
If Trump is not indicted, but could be when he leaves office, Trump could be considered part of an ongoing criminal investigation and DOJ prevents anyone from testifying about ongoing criminal investigations.
THAT is a problem. For Mueller. Not for the Grand Jury.
The Watergate ‘roadmap’ was not provided by prosecutors. It came direct from the Grand Jury:
The first striking thing about the “Road Map” is that it is not written in the voice of Jaworski at all. Unlike the Starr Report, which was a report by the prosecutors who investigated President Bill Clinton, this report is a court document, a “Report and Recommendation” from the grand jury itself combined with a document entitled “Material in the Grand Jury’s Possession Having a Material Bearing on Matters Within the Primary Jurisdiction of the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Relating to Questions of Impeachment.” The report is signed not by Jaworski but by “Foreman, June 5, 1972 Grand Jury.”
The document, in other words, is crafted not as a prosecutor’s report on his findings but as an action by the same citizens who handed up an indictment against the Watergate conspirators. It is even, in its very first sentence, crafted as something akin to an extension of that indictment. The grand jury declares at the outset that it has “heard evidence that has led it to return the indictment being submitted herewith. It has also heard evidence that it regards as having a material bearing on matters that are within the primary jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary in its present investigation to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.”
www.lawfareblog.com/…
The report from the grand jury laid out all the evidence that the grand jury heard related to Nixon that it believed were crimes.
One important difference with Trump: almost everything Mueller is investigating related to Trump occurred BEFORE Trump assumed office. Only one impeachment and conviction in history involved conduct before the assumption of an office: Judge Porteous in 2010.
Article II - engaged in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court Judge - Convicted in the Senate by a vote of 69-27.
However, some legal scholars believe the Founders specifically believed attaining office by fraudulent means would be impeachable. As was the case with Porteous, that could be the most contentious article of impeachment.
We also must remember that there are other investigations outside of what Mueller is doing — emoluments, abuse of power, etc. — that do relate to what Trump has done as President and would also be potential impeachable offenses.
Mueller extended the grand jury for 6 months. Democrats should be on a 6-month clock to get as many investigations done as they can so they are ready to go.
Impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee would start AFTER investigations are complete. During impeachment proceedings, the HJC reviews evidence to determine if matters warrant impeachment. They do not do the bulk of investigations during the proceedings. Nixon’s impeachment proceeding lasted only 3 months. Clinton was 1 month.