Trump Lied About the Mueller Investigation

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.  Our next book, Divided We Stand, looks at the 2020 election and the January 6 insurrection

 From the House Judiciary Committee:

Washington, D.C. - Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released a transcript of the Committee’s June 4 interview with Donald F. McGahn, former White House Counsel.

Chairman Nadler issued the following statement on the release of the transcript:

“Mr. McGahn provided the Committee with substantial new information—including firsthand accounts of President Trump’s increasingly out of control behavior, and insight into concerns that the former President’s conduct could expose both Trump and McGahn to criminal liability. Mr. McGahn also confirmed that President Trump lied when he denied the accuracy of the Mueller report, and admitted that he was the source for a Washington Post report that confirmed Trump’s direction to McGahn to remove the Special Counsel.

“All told, Mr. McGahn’s testimony gives us a fresh look at how dangerously close President Trump brought us to, in Mr. McGahn’s words, the ‘point of no return.’”

The full transcript is available here. Key quotes from Mr. McGahn’s testimony can be found below.

McGahn described President Trump’s conduct over the course of the Mueller investigation as increasingly erratic. The President’s directions to McGahn were “crazy shit” that threatened to “spiral out of control” and to a “point of no return.”

• “[W]hat I was not going to do is cause any sort of chain reaction that would cause this to spiral out of control in a way that wasn’t in the best interests . . . of my client, which was the President.” (40)
• “This was sort of my Irish Blarney way of explaining what I tried to explain earlier, that if I, as counsel to the President, called the Acting Attorney General and conveyed an urgent message about the need for the Special Counsel to not be permitted to serve because of conflicts, that could cause Rosenstein to think he was being ordered to do something that he would find contrary to his oath of office. And there’s a historical example of that happening. And when that happens, you have had a succession of resignations at the Department of Justice.” (46)
• “‘Inflection point,’ with that I meant a point of no return. If the Acting Attorney General received what he thought was a direction from the counsel to the President to remove a special counsel, he would either have to remove the special counsel or resign. We are still talking about the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ decades and decades later.” (46)
• “After I got off the phone with the President, how did I feel? Oof. Frustrated, perturbed, trapped. Many emotions.” (122)
• [After reading testimony from former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, who said that the President had asked McGahn to “do crazy shit.”]

Q. So, even if you don’t recall saying those specific words, is that a fair characterization of how you viewed the President’s request?

A. Well, the President probably thinks this is an unfair characterization, but I …

Q. I'm asking for your opinion.

A. … I think it’s fair. (103)
[After being asked about the President’s request to Priebus to force Sessions to resign]

Q. So there could potentially have been legal implications for removing the Attorney General.

A. Sure. Just because the initial act is legal doesn't mean it couldn’t cause other issues that raise legal problems. Happens all the time. (234)

McGahn repeatedly warned President Trump that “knocking out Mueller” might constitute obstruction of justice and both McGahn and the President worried about their own liability if they played any part in the obstruction.

• Q. Was it your understanding that the President was concerned that him asking you to have the special counsel removed could be harmful to him in the special counsel's investigation?

A. Certainly, yeah. (158)

• Q. Well, you had previously advised the President that [] quote, “knocking out Mueller,” end quote, would be, quote, “another fact used to claim obstruction of justice.” … Were you concerned that, if you had any part in removing Mueller, that could be a fact to use to claim obstruction of justice?

A. My own concern? Sure, yeah. (93-94)

President Trump directed McGahn to write a false statement—knowing that the statement was false, and knowing that carrying out this order might expose McGahn to criminal liability, including prosecution by the Special Counsel.

• Q. If you had put out the statement the President was requesting, disputing that the President ever asked you to have the special counsel removed by Rosenstein, would that have been accurate?

A. That statement would not have been accurate. (152)

• Q. So by February of 2018, the President was very aware that it was a Federal crime to lie to the special counsel and you could be indicted for doing so, correct?

A. Suppose so, yeah. (164)

• “Given his track record of prosecuting people for violations of [18 U.S.C.] 1001, I would have probably been next. He had already publicly made clear he was going after various people for that, and that certainly is one that would weigh on anybody’s mind.” (113)

Although President Trump has since called McGahn a “lying bastard,” McGahn stands by his testimony to the Special Counsel.

• Q. According to [former White House Staff Secretary Rob] Porter’s statements, the President also told him during that conversation that the article was, quote, “BS,” and claimed—it uses the full word—and claimed that he had not sought to terminate the special counsel, referring to you as a “lying bastard.” Did Porter convey that to you when you spoke to him?

A. Not that I recall, no. I think I learned [] I learned about that one once the Mueller report was released.

• Q. And was your reaction when you learned that?

A. Disappointing.

• Q. Why?

A. Well, because it’s not true. (126)

President Trump clearly lied when he told the press that he “never suggested firing Mueller.”

• “Well, you know, he certainly entertained the idea. Certainly seemed to ask a number of people about it. Certainly had a number of conversations with me about something along those lines. And, you know, I’ve learned other things in the report; apparently, that he had a conversation with Chris Christie on the same topic. So, you know, it was disappointing that he’d come out and say, oh, it was never on the table when, certainly, at least the conflict of interest issue and whether that would preclude Mueller from being special counsel, certainly was discussed.” (166)

McGahn acknowledged that he was the source for a Washington Post report that President Trump had ordered him to remove the Special Counsel.

“I did talk to The Washington Post. I was a source for that second story over whether or not . . . because the press shop did not seem to be knowing how to get out that I never told the President directly I was going to resign….” (124)

Trump Knew

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign.   The update includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.  Russia is likely to make a similar effort this year.

Jason Leopold, Anthony Cormier, and Ken Bensinger at BuzzFeed:

Donald Trump was told in advance that Wikileaks would be releasing documents embarrassing to the Clinton campaign and subsequently informed advisors that he expected more releases would be coming, according to newly unredacted portions of special counsel Robert Mueller's report into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

In July 2016, political consultant Roger Stone told Trump as well as several campaign advisors that he had spoken with Julian Assange and that WikiLeaks would be publishing the documents in a matter of days. Stone told the then-candidate via speakerphone that he "did not know what the content of the materials was," according to the newly unveiled portions of the report, and Trump responded "oh good, alright" upon hearing the news. WikiLeaks published a trove of some 20,000 emails Russians hacked from the Democratic National Committee on July 22 of that year.

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen told federal investigators that he overheard the phone call between Stone and Trump. Agents were also told by former campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates that Stone had spoken several times in early June of something “big” coming from WikiLeaks. Assange first mentioned having emails related to Clinton on June 12.

The new revelations are the strongest indication to date that Trump and his closest advisors were aware of outside efforts to hurt Clinton’s electoral chances, and that Stone played a direct role in communicating that situation to the Trump campaign. Trump has publicly denied being aware of any information being relayed between WikiLeaks and his advisors.

Impeachment Becoming Less Unlikely

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.     The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms. Impeachment is becoming less unlikely.

Mueller's terse and sometimes halting testimony supposedly halted the movement to impeach Trump.  It didn't. Mike Lillis and Scott Wong at The Hill:

On Monday, Reps. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.) and Dina Titus (Nev.) endorsed the push, joining at least a dozen other Democrats who have signed on since last Wednesday, when former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress on his investigation into Russia's election interference and whether Trump obstructed the probe.

That list includes a pair of freshmen — Reps. Mike Levin (Calif.) and Kim Schrier (Wash.) — who flipped Republican-held seats in last year’s midterms; Rep. Derek Kilmer (Wash.), who heads the centrist group of New Democrats; and a member of leadership, Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the vice chairwoman of the caucus.

Other lawmakers signing on in recent days are Democratic Reps. Lori Trahan (Mass.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (R.I.), Ann Kuster (N.H.), Chris Pappas (N.H.), Suzan DelBene (Wash.) and Denny Heck (Wash.).

The additions have pushed the number of Democrats seeking impeachment to 106, according to a tally being kept by The Hill. Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), who left the Republican Party earlier this month, is also backing the effort.

That means pro-impeachment Democrats are just a dozen votes shy of 118 — a “majority of the majority,” or more than half of the 235 Democrats in the lower chamber.

Burgess Everett at Politico:

Patty Murray doesn’t typically make waves. But the low-key senator’s endorsement of an impeachment inquiry is doing exactly that in the Senate Democratic Caucus.

The No. 3 Senate Democrat threw her considerable political weight behind the impeachment question on Sunday afternoon, joining Washington State’s House Democrats in a surprise statement. And the No. 4 Senate Democrat, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, followed suit on Monday.

A new ad from Tom Steyer's group

The Hearings

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign.   The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

.@radiofreetom, proud to be an ex-Republican after the GOP's day of shame: Conspiracy theories, excusing Russians, attacking Mueller: How low can Republicans go? https://t.co/ZdQnZ8i1QW via @usatoday @usatodayopinion

— Jill Lawrence (@JillDLawrence) July 25, 2019

Here's the moment that will get played over and over:

Nadler: "Did you actually totally exonerate the president?"

Mueller: "No."
Via ABC pic.twitter.com/3zG8a6S2Z0

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 24, 2019

Devin Nunes did his homework pic.twitter.com/Y8DzGoMlMM

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) July 24, 2019

Mueller Speaks

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign.   The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Richard L. Hasen at Slate:

Special counsel Robert Mueller issued a final statement on Wednesday before resigning from the Department of Justice, which clearly appeared aimed at one person: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Mueller’s simple message to Pelosi is that it is the constitutional duty of Congress—and her sworn duty as speaker of the House—to begin an investigation of the president and seriously consider impeaching him.

Unlike Attorney General William Barr’s early characterization of the Mueller report’s decision not to find criminal behavior on the part of the president as having nothing to do with the Department of Justice policy against indicting a sitting president, Mueller’s statement made clear the special counsel’s office believes “it was bound” by department policy not to indict the president—or even accuse him. “It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge accuse him of committing a crime,” Mueller said, reemphasizing something he had already directly stated in his report.

But coupled with this statement from Mueller were three points aimed at Pelosi: First, given DOJ policy, “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” That process is impeachment, though Mueller was again oblique about this. Second, “as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Third, “when a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.”

The Amash Thread

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.  Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) has become the first Republican to call for Trump's impeachment.

Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019

In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019

Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019

In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019

While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019

We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019

America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019

And of course, the response:

Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy. If he actually read the biased Mueller Report, “composed” by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump,....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 19, 2019

Case Not Closed

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Katelyn Polantz at CNN:

Michael Flynn told special counsel Robert Mueller that people connected to the Trump administration or Congress had contacted him, potentially attempting to influence his willingness to help prosecutors, newly unsealed court records show.

Flynn, President Donald Trump's one-time national security adviser, gave Mueller a voicemail recording of one of the conversations. A federal judge has ordered that the voicemail's transcript, transcripts of Flynn's calls with Russian officials and potentially redacted parts of the Mueller report related to Flynn be made public, setting up the likelihood that even more details will be made public in the coming weeks.

The communications, from "persons connected to the Administration or Congress," Mueller wrote, "could have affected both (Flynn's) willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation."

"In some of those instances, the (Special Counsel's Office) was unaware of the outreach until being alerted to it" by Flynn, the newly unsealed court record from the Justice Department said.

The revelations raise the possibility that others around the President may have attempted to obstruct justice with the outreach to Flynn. However, Mueller, in both the Flynn court filing and his final report, did not go into detail on that possibility.

My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on. Nothing like this has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail sentences, and this was TREASON!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 17, 2019

It now seems the General Flynn was under investigation long before was common knowledge. It would have been impossible for me to know this but, if that was the case, and with me being one of two people who would become president, why was I not told so that I could make a change?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 17, 2019

(Two days after the election, Obama did warn Trump about Flynn.)

Mueller Report: Suspicions

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

From the Mueller report (vol. 2, pp. 76-77):

As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns. Although the President publicly stated during and after the election that he had no connection to Russia, the Trump Organization, through Michael Cohen was pursuing the proposed Trump Tower Moscow project through June 2016 and candidate Trump was repeatedly briefed on the progress of those efforts. In addition , some witnesses said that Trump was aware that [REDACTED: HARM TO ONGOING MATTER] at a time when public reports stated that Russian intelligence officials were behind the hacks, and that Trump privately sought information about future WikiLeaks releases. More broadly , multiple witnesses described the President 's preoccupation with press coverage of the Russia investigation and his persistent concern that it raised questions about the legitimacy of his election.

Barr Did Not Give Straight Testimony

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky at WP:

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post.

The letter and a subsequent phone call between the two men reveal the degree to which the longtime colleagues and friends disagreed as they handled the legally and politically fraught task of investigating the president. Democrats in Congress are likely to scrutinize Mueller’s complaints to Barr as they contemplate the prospect of opening impeachment proceedings and mull how hard to press for Mueller himself to testify publicly.

BREAKING: Letter from Special Counsel Robert Mueller to Attorney General Barr. pic.twitter.com/oDJm6coP8G

— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) May 1, 2019

On April 20th, I asked Barr, “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” His answer was, “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”

We now know Mueller stated his concerns on March 27th, and that Barr totally misled me, the Congress, and the public. He must resign. pic.twitter.com/rod404BbYo

— Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) May 1, 2019

Mueller Report: "A Significant Change in the President's Conduct"

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

From the Mueller report (vol. 2, pp.158):

In considering the full scope of the conduct we investigated, the President's actions can
be divided into two distinct phases reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. In the first phase , before the President fired Comey, the President had been assured that the FBI had not opened an investigation of him personally. The President deemed it critically important to make public that he was not under investigation, and he included that information in his termination letter to Comey after other efforts to have that information disclosed were unsuccessful.

Soon after he fired Comey, however, the President became aware that investigators were
conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President's conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the
government. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

Mueller Report: Substantial Evidence

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Nearly every time the Mueller report (vol. 2) mentions "substantial evidence," it is bad for Trump:

• After Comey's account of the dinner became public, the President and his advisors disputed that he had asked for Comey's loyalty. The President also indicated that he had not invited Comey to dinner, telling a reporter that he thought Comey had "asked for the dinner " because "he wanted to stay on." But substantial evidence corroborates Comey's account of the dinner invitation and the request for loyalty. (p. 35)
• In private, the President denied aspects of Comey's account to White House advisors, but acknowledged to Priebus that he brought Flynn up in the meeting with Comey and stated that Flynn was a good guy. Despite those denials, substantial evidence corroborates Corney's account. (p. 44)
• Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President 's decision to fire Comey was Corney 's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation , despite the President's repeated requests that Corney make such an announcement. (p.75)
• After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts , and privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the Department of Justice 's attention . See Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Some of the President's specific language that McGahn recalled from the calls is consistent with that explanation. Substantial evidence , however , supports the conclusion that the President went further and in fact directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed. (p. 88)
• Substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, 2017, the President knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. (p. 89)
• Substantial evidence indicates that the President 's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President 's and his campaign's conduct. (p. 97)
• As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and cont ext of the President's directive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice , and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. (p. 118)
• Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated , the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn 's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation. (p. 120)

Mueller Report: Trump Tells WH Counsel to Lie

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

From the Mueller report (vol. 2, pp.116-117):

The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not " look good" and McGahn needed to correct it. McGahn recalled the President said , "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire. ' This story doesn't look good. You need to correct this. You're the White House counsel."

In response , McGahn acknowledged that he had not told the President directly that he
planned to resign , but said that the story was otherwise accurate. The President asked McGahn,  "Did I say the word 'fire'?"  McGahn responded, "What you said is, 'Call Rod [Rosenstein] ,tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the Special Counsel. "' The President responded, "I never said that. "The President said he merely wanted McGahn to raise the conflicts issue with Rosenstein and leave it to him to decide what to do. McGahn told the President he did not understand the conversation that way and instead had heard , "Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go." The President asked McGahn whether he would "do a correction," and McGahn said no.  McGahn thought the President was testing his mettle to see how committed McGahn was to what happened. Kelly described the meeting as "a little tense."

The President also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel's Office investigators that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President were not protected by attorney-client privilege. The President then asked , "What-about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don 't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes."  McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer" and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing. The President said, "I've had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn . He did not take notes."

On June 24, 1986,  the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court disbarred Cohn on charges of "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation."

Faithful Execution and Non-Exoneration

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

From the Mueller report (volume 2, page 8):

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 President's 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 President's
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 President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's 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.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

The Mueller Report: McGahn and Obstruction

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

From the Mueller report:

On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed.  McGahn was at home and the President was at Camp David. In interviews with this Office, McGahn recalled that the Pre sident called him at home twice and on both occasions directed him to call Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as Special Counsel. 

On the first call, McGahn recalled that the President said something like , "You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod."  McGahn said he told the President that he would see what he could do.  McGahn was perturbed by the call and did not intend to act on the request.  He and other advisors believed the asserted conflicts were "silly" and "not real, " and they had previously communicated that view to the President.  McGahn also had made clear to the President that the White House Counsel's Office should not be involved in any effort to press the issue of conflicts.  McGahn was concerned about having any role in asking the Acting Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel because he had grown up in the Reagan era and wanted to be more like Judge Robert Bork and not " Saturday Night Massacre Bork." McGahn considered the President 's request to be an inflection point and he wanted to hit the brakes. 

When the President called McGahn a second time to follow up on the order to call the Department of Justice, McGahn recalled that the President was more direct , saying something like, "Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can 't be the Special Counsel."  McGahn recalled the President telling him "Mueller has to go" and "Call me back when you do it." McGahn understood the President to be saying that the Special Counsel had to be removed by Rosenstein. To end the conversation with the President , McGahn left the President with the impression that McGahn would call Rosenstein. McGahn recalled that he had already said no to the President's request and he was worn down , so he just wanted to get off the phone. 

McGahn recalled feeling trapped because he did not plan to follow the President's directive but did not know what he would say the next time the President  alled.  McGahn decided he had to resign. He called his personal lawyer and then called his chief of staff, Annie Donaldson, to inform her of his decision.  He then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter.  Donaldson recalled that McGahn told her the President had called and demanded he contact the Department of Justice and that the President wanted him to do something that McGahn did not want to do.  McGahn told Donaldson that the President had called at least twice and in one of the calls asked "have you done it?" McGahn did not tell Donaldson the specifics of the President's request because he was consciously trying not to involve her in the investigation , but Donaldson inferred that the President's directive was related to the Russia investigation. Donaldson prepared to resign along with McGahn. 

That evening, McGahn called both Priebus and Bannon and told them that he intended to resign. McGahn recalled that, after speaking with his attorney and given the nature of thePresident 's request, he decided not to share details of the President's request with other White House staff. Priebus recalled that McGahn said that the President had asked him to "do crazy shit, " but he thought McGahn did not tell him the specifics of the President 's request because McGahn was trying to protect Priebus from what he did not need to know.  Priebus and Bannon both urged McGahn not to quit, and McGahn ultimately returned to work that Monday and remained in his position.  He had not told the President directly that he planned to resign, and when they next saw each other the President did not ask McGahn whether he had followed through with calling Rosenstein. 

Around the same time, Chris Christie recalled a telephone _call with the President in which the President asked what Christie thought about the President firing the Special Counsel. Christie advised against doing so because there was no substantive basis for the President to fire the Special Counsel, and because the President would lose support from Republicans in Congress if he did so.

...

Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct- and, most immediately , to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.

Before the President terminated Corney , the President considered it critically important that he was not under investigation and that the public not erroneously think he was being investigated. As described in Volume TI, Section TI.D, supra, advisors perceived the President , while he was drafting the Corney termination letter, to be concerned more than anything else about getting out that he was not personally under investigation. When the President learned of the appointment of the Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, he expressed further concern about the investigation, saying "[t]his is the end of my Presidency. " The President also faulted Sessions for recusing , saying "you were supposed to protect me. "

On June 14, 2017, when the Washington Post reported that the Special Counsel was investigating the President for obstruction of justice, the President was facing what he had wanted to avoid: a criminal investigation into his own conduct that was the subject of widespread media attention. The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed. By mid-June, the Department of Justice had already cleared the Special Counse l's service and the President's advisors had told him that the claimed conflicts of interest were "silly" and did not provide a basis to remove the Special Counsel. On June 13, 2017, the Acting Attorney General testified before Congress that no good cause for removing the Special Counsel existed, and the President dictated a press statement to Sanders saying he had no intention of firing the Special Counsel. But the next day, the media reported that the President was under investigation for obstruction of justice and the Special Counsel was interviewing witnesses about events related to possible obstruction - spurring the President to write critical tweets about the Specia l Counsel's investigation. The President called McGahn at home that night and then called him on Saturday from Camp David . The evidence accordingly indicates that news that an obstruction investigation had been opened is what led the President to call McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated.

There also is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn. The President made the calls to McGahn after McGahn had specifically told the President that the White House Counsel's Office-and McGahn himself-could not be involved in pressing conflicts claims and that the President should consult with his personal counsel if he wished to raise conflicts. Instead of relying on his personal counsel to submit the conflicts claims, the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel. And after the media reported on the President's actions, he denied that he ever ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated and made repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story, as discussed in Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Those denials are contrary to the evidence and suggest the President's awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper.