Robert Mueller thought he set the table perfectly for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to impeach President Trump.
Mueller’s final report included an entire section designed to convict President Trump on charges of obstruction of justice.
But Trey Gowdy just drove the final nail in Mueller’s coffin with this reality check.
Robert Mueller made up for the fact that his report admitted there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians by conjuring up a narrative that Donald Trump repeatedly tried to obstruct justice during the Russia probe by giving orders to limit Mueller’s investigation.
None of these orders were carried through – and they all fell within Trump’s Article II executive authority anyway – but Mueller listed 11 instances of Trump supposedly trying to rein in his investigation as “evidence” that Trump was guilty.
Mueller knew his legal case was BS and brought no charges, however he made sure to include language begging the Democrats to take up an impeachment inquiry.
Other legal experts pointed out the flimsy legal theory Mueller and the anti-Trump forces built their obstruction case on.
One of them was former federal prosecutor and South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy.
Gowdy appeared on Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom” for an interview with anchor Bill Hemmer where he laid out why Mueller did not charge the President with obstruction of justice.
“There is some unsettled law on exactly what a president can do. I mean, a president could pardon you today, Bill, before you were ever charged,” Gowdy told Hemmer.
Gowdy then explained that Mueller ran into trouble trying to claim Trump potentially obstructed justice by exercising his lawful powers as outlined in the Constitution.
“A president can call the United States attorney and say, ‘look, I’m going to pardon Bill Hemmer so don’t even waste your time,” Gowdy continued.
Gowdy did note that a President could theoretically obstruct justice by ordering subordinates to lie to investigators or destroy evidence.
But even Mueller and his band of angry Democrats did not accuse President Trump of those offenses.
Gowdy explained to Hemmer, “I think it’s an open-ended question — can a president obstruct an investigation? Surely if you spoliate evidence, if you encourage witnesses to lie, of course, that’s obstruction of justice.”
Finally, Gowdy stated his belief that Mueller ran up against the Department of Justice’s guidelines that prevents a prosecutor from indicting a sitting President.
“So, I think what Mueller was saying is we don’t know the department’s position on whether the president can obstruct justice or not. That’s for you to decide, we’re going to punt it to you,” Gowdy began.
“Not just the factual interpretation, but legally, can a president be indicted for obstruction of justice when he or she is the head of the executive branch? That’s how I interpreted that,” Gowdy concluded.
On every level Mueller had no obstruction case.
But yet he detailed over ten examples of behavior he thought violated the law.
Prosecutors aren’t supposed to conduct their business in that manner.
Either they charge someone or they do not.
Prosecutors do not lay out the case against an individual without charging them because then the target has no opportunity to clear their name in court.
Mueller knew all of this, but his report was a political document designed to give Democrats in Congress cover to impeach the President.
We will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story.