Professor Joel Cohen wrote an op-ed featured in The Hill providing his analysis of Robert Mueller’s actions surrounding the release of his report on the Russia investigation.
So, instead of deciding to seal an indictment or hold off indicting until Trump was out of office — neither an appealing option — Mueller concluded, and essentially declared, in his report: “I can’t indict him, so it would be unfair to him (as it would be to any target) for me to publicly announce that his (obstruction) conduct is criminally indictable.” Mueller basically said that he knew he shouldn’t indict and therefore it wouldn’t be right to publicly accuse the president without the grand jury itself saying so. Thus, the only thing left, he decided, was to simply lay out facts in a “Just the facts, ma’am” way. No editorializing, no characterization whatsoever.
But at what price to Mueller’s status, as the nonpartisan prosecutor appointed to make clear that politics would not be at play in investigating the president, did he decline to articulate what he actually concluded? By doing what he did, Mueller allowed a clearly partisan attorney general to do what Mueller certainly didn’t agree with — announce that the president did not commit obstruction of justice.
