Special
counsel Robert S. Mueller III said Wednesday that his office could
neither clear nor accuse President Trump of obstructing justice, leaving
room for Congress to make a call where he would not and fueling
impeachment demands among some Democrats.
In his first public remarks on the case since he concluded his
investigation, Mueller said that if his office “had had confidence that
the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”
and noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the
criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of
wrongdoing.”
But if Mueller was trying to suggest that Democrats could initiate
impeachment proceedings, he also seemed to dash any hopes they might
have had that he would be their star witness, ready and willing to
detail new and unflattering information his office had uncovered about
Trump.
The special counsel — who noted he was closing up shop and formally
resigning from the Justice Department — said that he hoped the news
conference would be his last public comments and that if he were
compelled to testify before Congress, he would not speak beyond what he
wrote in his 448-page report.
The comments — the first time Mueller has spoken on live television
since his investigation began — mostly reemphasized what the special
counsel already had said in his report, and they instantly fueled
partisan infighting in Washington.
Some Democrats intensified their calls for impeachment, though their leadership in the House remained noncommittal.
In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has resisted a move toward such a step,
merely thanked Mueller for providing “a record for future action both
in the Congress and in the courts” and said lawmakers would “continue to
investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our
democracy.”
Several Democratic presidential contenders — including Sen. Kamala D.
Harris (Calif.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and South Bend, Ind.,
Mayor Pete Buttigieg — said Mueller’s comments were akin to an
impeachment referral. Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) said Congress “has a legal
and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately.”
Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.), the only Republican to call for impeachment, tweeted, “The ball is in our court, Congress.”
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the administration was
“prepared” for an impeachment fight, though she called on Democrats to
move on. “After two years, the special counsel is moving on with his
life, and everyone else should do the same,” she said.
Trump said in a tweet: “Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There
was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is
innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.” Jay Sekulow, his attorney,
said Mueller’s statement “puts a period on a two-year investigation that
produced no findings of collusion or obstruction against the
President.”
That sentiment was echoed by prominent Republicans, including the Senate
Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), and the
House minority whip, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). They are among Trump’s
biggest supporters on Capitol Hill.
Democrats vowed to press ahead with their investigations of Trump, and
they did not immediately abandon the idea of compelling Mueller to
testify. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a
statement after the news conference that Mueller “needs to testify
before Congress” and that Mueller’s full, unredacted report needs to be
turned over to lawmakers. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B.
Schiff (D-Calif.) said, “While I understand his reluctance to answer
hypotheticals or deviate from the carefully worded conclusions he drew
on his charging decisions, there are, nevertheless, a great many
questions he can answer that go beyond the report, including any
counterintelligence issues and classified matters that were not
addressed in his findings.”
A House Democratic leadership aide said the chamber still intends to call the special counsel to appear before Congress — even if lawmakers have to compel his testimony. Should Mueller refuse, Democrats could issue a subpoena, though they were hoping to avoid such a measure.
Asked Thursday whether he would take such a step, House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) paused, flashing a pained
expression face before responding, “Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we
need to hear today.”
The aide, who follows the House investigations closely and was speaking
on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity,
argued that there is value in having Mueller appear in public, even if
he refuses to answer questions beyond what is in the report. Most
Americans, Democrats note, have not read Mueller’s findings — but
potentially millions would tune in to a hearing broadcast on national
television to hear him review some of what he found.
“There are tons of benefits to the visual. . . . To animate and
dramatize the report elevates public awareness of it,” the aide said.
Mueller’s highly anticipated public statement was observed by about a
dozen government lawyers who stood in the back of the room on the
Justice Department’s seventh floor as Mueller spoke alone at a lectern.
Attorney General William P. Barr was traveling in Alaska. The White
House was notified Tuesday night that Mueller planned to make the
statement, according to a senior White House official. Trump held a
conference call with his lawyers before and after Mueller’s remarks,
according to Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and told them that he did
not think Mueller made any news or broke new ground. Giuliani said the
phrase used by the president and his team was, “Nothing new.”
Speaking softly and with an occasional rasp in his voice, Mueller laid
out his reasons for not wanting to testify — mainly his belief that his
report speaks for itself and his intent to return to private life.
“I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in
this manner,” Mueller said. “I am making that decision myself. No one
has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this
matter.”
If pressed to testify, he added, he “would not go beyond our report,” because “the report is my testimony.”
“We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself,” Mueller said.
Mueller thanked Barr for making most of his report public — suggesting
that there might no longer be tension, as there once was, over how the
attorney general was characterizing Mueller’s work. After Mueller had
finished his investigation, but before his report was released, Barr had
sent lawmakers a four-page letter describing the special counsel’s
principal conclusions. That led Mueller to write his own missive to
Barr in which he alleged that the attorney general “did not fully
capture the context, nature, and substance” of investigators’ work.
Mueller did not address the dispute specifically Wednesday but said he
did not question Barr’s “good faith” in releasing the report. He left
without taking any questions.
After the news conference, spokespeople for the Justice Department and
the special counsel’s office issued a joint statement saying there was
“no conflict” between Barr’s and Mueller’s previous statements on how
Mueller decided he would not reach a conclusion on whether Trump
obstructed justice.
Mueller noted that his team found “insufficient evidence” to accuse
Trump’s campaign of conspiring with Russia to tilt the 2016 election but
emphasized that investigators did not make a similar determination on
whether the president obstructed justice.
That much was already in Mueller’s report. Mueller’s team wrote that
Justice Department legal guidance prohibiting the indictment of a
sitting president prevented prosecutors from accusing the commander in
chief of a crime, even in a private report.
On Wednesday, Mueller sought to explain his thinking more fully. A
president, he said, “cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is
in office. That is unconstitutional.” And he noted, “Even if the charge
is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is
prohibited.”
“Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said.
But Mueller said his team was still allowed to investigate Trump because
it was possible that others could be charged. He did not say what
prosecutors might have done if the law allowed a president to be
charged, but he hinted that lawmakers could still pursue the matter.
Hundreds of former federal prosecutors have opined that Mueller laid out
sufficient evidence in his report to make an obstruction case against
Trump.
Since filing their detailed report,
Mueller and his team have been frustrated by what they perceive as a
lack of understanding even among lawmakers about a critical legal point —
that Justice Department policy and fairness prohibit Mueller from
reaching a decision on whether the president committed a crime.
Under that policy, Mueller and his team also think it would be improper
for Mueller to say that the president would be charged with obstruction
were it not for the Justice Department policy, because saying that would
amount to a criminal accusation against the president, according to
people involved in the discussion.
Mueller’s team came to believe that making any sort of impeachment
referral to Congress also would fall under the category of accusing the
president of a crime, according to people familiar with their
discussions.
For those reasons, Mueller has been guarded in his comments about the
findings and wants to avoid being drawn into a back-and-forth in
congressional testimony that could be tantamount to accusing the
president of a crime, these people said.
Rachael Bade, Carol D. Leonnig, Karoun Demirjian and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.
