How Mueller's decision on obstruction helped save Trump

The U.S. Attorney General decided that President Donald Trump did not obstruct a probe into whether his campaign colluded with Russia, but some legal experts said prosecutors laid out a wealth of evidence to the contrary and that they intended to leave that determination to Congress.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report revealed new details about Trump’s attempts to impede his investigation on Thursday. They included how the president tried to fire Mueller and limit his investigation, kept details of a June 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and a Russian under wraps, and possibly dangled a pardon to a former adviser.

Democrats said on Thursday the report contained disturbing evidence of wrongdoing by Trump that could fuel congressional investigations.

Some legal experts echoed that view. They said the evidence should have given prosecutors a strong basis for bringing an obstruction case against Trump, but Mueller demurred because a longstanding Department of Justice policy against indicting a sitting president.

Jens Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University, said the evidence laid out by the Mueller report was “really exhaustive in terms of the number of incidents and how severe they are.”

In his report, Mueller focused on a series of actions, including Trump’s conduct toward law enforcement officials and witnesses. At one point, Mueller says the Congress has powers to check a president. At least half a dozen legal experts said the special counsel intended Congress to take up the matter.

“There is a wink, and a nod, and another wink to Congress that I have a lot of evidence and now the ball is in your court,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

House Democrats took that view as well. In a joint statement, the House chairs said “the Special Counsel undoubtedly anticipated” the Congress must assess the evidence.