Those unfamiliar with the criminal-legal system were somewhat surprised that the Mueller team declined to draw a definitive conclusion about the "obstruction of justice" questions pertaining the the President's actions.
But this was not surprising in any way.
The question of whether the President obstructed justice (legally) when he, for example, fired FBI Director Comey comes down to, "Why did he do it?" If he fired Comey in order to impede the investigation into "Russia Collusion," then the firing would constitute obstruction of justice. But if he fired Comey for the long list of reasons detailed in Rod Rosenstein's letter, then it was nothing more than a President exercising his legal and appropriate discretion. The only "person" who can make that determination is (a) a judge after a full trial, or (b) a jury. The prosecutor cannot decide or even conclude what was in the President's mind, particularly when the possibilities are both quite obvious and plausible. And in fact, no honest prosecutor would bring an Obstruction of Justice charge in a case like this because the defense is so strong and inarguable. (And is these PARTICULAR circumstances, where Trump knew that the Russia Collusion theme was pure nonsense, he arguably would have been justified in firing Comey for not just dropping the whole thing).
A.G. Barr has also gone on record - rightly, in my legal opinion - that the President's discretionary actions MUST NOT be challenged on Obstruction of Justice grounds when he is exercising Constitutional discretion, because to do so would create a situation where everything a President does is subject to political challenge and dispute.
The same (or an analogous) issues come up when considering whether paying off the Bimbo's was an "illegal campaign contribution," or merely a case of a husband/father trying to avoid marital distress and family embarrassment. No prosecutor can get inside Trump's head and make that determination, and as long as the "innocent" explanation is plausible - as it is here - no honest prosecutor would even bring the case of an illegal campaign contribution.
Which also points to the absurdity of Mr. Cohen's "admission" that he participated in illegal campaign payoffs. His "admission" PRE-SUPPOSES a definitive determination BY A COURT that the motivation for the payments was POLITICAL and not PERSONAL. I realize he was an incompetent attorney, but any real attorney knows how absurd this admission was. It is analogous to me "admitting" I participated in a bank robbery when I drove my wife home from the bank - when she was merely making a large withdrawal from her own account.
But this was not surprising in any way.
The question of whether the President obstructed justice (legally) when he, for example, fired FBI Director Comey comes down to, "Why did he do it?" If he fired Comey in order to impede the investigation into "Russia Collusion," then the firing would constitute obstruction of justice. But if he fired Comey for the long list of reasons detailed in Rod Rosenstein's letter, then it was nothing more than a President exercising his legal and appropriate discretion. The only "person" who can make that determination is (a) a judge after a full trial, or (b) a jury. The prosecutor cannot decide or even conclude what was in the President's mind, particularly when the possibilities are both quite obvious and plausible. And in fact, no honest prosecutor would bring an Obstruction of Justice charge in a case like this because the defense is so strong and inarguable. (And is these PARTICULAR circumstances, where Trump knew that the Russia Collusion theme was pure nonsense, he arguably would have been justified in firing Comey for not just dropping the whole thing).
A.G. Barr has also gone on record - rightly, in my legal opinion - that the President's discretionary actions MUST NOT be challenged on Obstruction of Justice grounds when he is exercising Constitutional discretion, because to do so would create a situation where everything a President does is subject to political challenge and dispute.
The same (or an analogous) issues come up when considering whether paying off the Bimbo's was an "illegal campaign contribution," or merely a case of a husband/father trying to avoid marital distress and family embarrassment. No prosecutor can get inside Trump's head and make that determination, and as long as the "innocent" explanation is plausible - as it is here - no honest prosecutor would even bring the case of an illegal campaign contribution.
Which also points to the absurdity of Mr. Cohen's "admission" that he participated in illegal campaign payoffs. His "admission" PRE-SUPPOSES a definitive determination BY A COURT that the motivation for the payments was POLITICAL and not PERSONAL. I realize he was an incompetent attorney, but any real attorney knows how absurd this admission was. It is analogous to me "admitting" I participated in a bank robbery when I drove my wife home from the bank - when she was merely making a large withdrawal from her own account.
