… have read, or will read, the mueller report. most notoriously gphin305, who is nevertheless an expert on it. so, to recap…
section 1: details what russia did to attack america’s election. shows that many members central to trump’s campaign were falling over themselves to do favors for, curry favor with, russia. the indictments returned of non-russians were for wire fraud, perjury, mail fraud, and for russians, breaking election laws along with identity theft and some other stuff.
there were 2 reasons indictments for conspiracy were not returned against trump officials: lack of evidence substantial enough to support a likely conviction; and ignorance. if you read about the trump tower meeting, what probably saved don jr an indictment is his probable lack of any sense that what he was doing was illegal or wrong. don jr was utterly inscrutable. one rare case of: it pays to be a blockhead.
section 2: recounts between a dozen and 15 instances of potential obstruction of justice. each recounting followed what would become, to the reader, a familiar pattern. first, the narrative of the occasion (e.g., directing mcgahn to lie). then, an analysis of the behavior. then, in each case, a recitation of: the “obstructive act” (what it was); then, the “nexus between the act and an official proceeding” (how the obstructive behavior would affect the outcome of, say, a grand jury proceeding); and third, the “corrupt intent”, that is, the knowledge that what you’re doing is wrong. my takeaway: all of these elements are necessary for a successful prosecution of obstruction.
here is why i’ve come down on believing that mueller would be disappointed if congress does not impeach trump: in a number of those narratives, the report itself provides mitigating or competing evidence. maybe the intent couldn’t be successfully demonstrated. however, in at least 4 or 5 instances, there is no mitigating narrative. there was a meaningful, impactful, obstructive act that was taken with corrupt intent designed to materially affect a proceeding.
section 3: what section 3, you might ask? it’s short. the president’s personal lawyers claimed - in correspondence to mueller - that the president is not capable of obstructing justice because he’s granted absolute powers under article II of the constitution, tho they conceded (according to mueller) that he may be exposed through committing acts that “do not involve exercises” of his constitutional authority (such as bribery; suborning perjury).
to those argue that article II powers are absolute: mueller goes on at length to dispute this. one central thesis of his is that article I gives congress the “authority to define generally applicable criminal law and apply it to all persons - including the president.” also, article III gives courts “an equally strong interest in being protected against obstructive acts, whatever their source.” he further believes “the grand jury cannot achieve its constitutional purpose absent protection from corrupt acts.”
mueller also notes that, “the concept of ‘faithful execution’ connotes the use of power in the interest of the public, not in the office holder’s personal interests.”
in other words, mueller is saying that “absolute” powers granted the president cannot be absolute if they impede the “absolute” powers of the congress, or the courts. where these absolute powers collide, one must find a theme that reconciles these. and here it is:
“the protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person - including the president - accords with the fundamental principle of our govt that no person in this country is so high that he is above the law.”
about the OLC memo: it beggars credulity that barr does not know, did not know, does not understand, that mueller feels constrained by this. probably 4 times throughout the report mueller referenced the OLC guidance keeping him from forming a prosecutorial opinion. it is my guess that barr was not lying. he just didn’t read the report! he’s like gphin305. no need to read it. is not motivated to read anything that might cloud otherwise clear thoughts. or perhaps just monumentally lazy.
about mueller’s press statement: to show how shallow and lazy people are, and i mean politicians, news media, everyone who failed to acknowledge this fact: he wasn’t simply exhorting people to read his report. for lengthy parts of his 10min monologue he was simply reading his report! basically, it was the audio version of the report, word-for-word, abridged. mueller, in his private joke, took 10min to sit folks down and read excerpts from the report he himself knew few of the reporters and news folks had read (or they’d have immediately recognized the word-for-word text).
and finally, this document was accompanied by nearly 2,500 footnotes. it’s exhaustive, hard slogging at times, no it doesn’t read like a novel, but it’s expertly done by the cream of career investigators and prosecutors. if you contend otherwise, you display your ignorance for everyone to see, your public shame saved only by the fact that you live behind a screen name.
there you go. just saved you $1.99 on amazon kindle you weren’t going to spend anyway.