'No person is above the law': Here's the most crucial paragraph from the Mueller report
written by Cody Fenwick April 18, 2019
Special Counsel Robert Muellers report is a revealing and incisive document, explicating and detailing the extensive evidence uncovered in the investigation of a potential conspiracy between President Donald Trumps campaign and the Russian government as well as presidential attempts to obstruct justice.
And while many of these new details and the narrative they tie together are of incredible value, much of the outline of the behavior documented were already known. Trump and his campaign aides were interacting frequently with figures tied to the Russian government, gleefully accepted their help during the election, and tried sometimes illegally and sometimes successfully to cover it all up. As president, Trump engaged in a series of outrageous acts designed to stymie the probe, many of which could clearly be considered criminal obstruction of justice but Mueller declined to make a prosecutorial judgment on this question.
Instead, he clearly thinks it is up to Congress to decide whether to hold Trump accountable. In arguably the most crucial paragraph of the report, the Mueller team sets forth why potential charges for Trumps obstruction would be legitimate under the Constitution and fall to lawmakers, at least for now:
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the Presidents ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term corruptly sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of corrupt official action does not diminish the Presidents ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the Presidents constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the Presidents conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chili his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the Presidents corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
More:
https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/no-person-is-above-the-law-heres-the-most-crucial-paragraph-from-the-mueller-report/?utm_source=push_notifications
empedocles
(15,751 posts)Thank you Judi.