As Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller made clear in his report, and again today on TV, a sitting president can’t be indicted, even if the evidence is overwhelming. Only Congress can hold a president accountable, through impeachment. And as we all know, Mitch McConnell’s servile Senate will never convict Trump.

Add that up, and it means that President Trump doesn’t have to obey the law. For him, in this bizarre moment in our history, the law books are strictly advisory.

That doesn’t sit right. So, I called Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-7th, who recently became the first member of New Jersey’s Congressional delegation to call for impeachment hearings, to hear him out. I haven’t decided yet myself, so this is really his column, not mine. Today, I’m just the stenographer.

--On Mueller:

“He’s a great American, a patriot. He plays it fair and by the rules, even coming up against a bunch of people who would never dream of doing either.” He agrees it would be unfair for Mueller to say he would indict, if it were not for the Justice Department rule barring it. “If the good guys stoop to the level of the bad guys, we’re done.”

“If he had confidence to clear Trump of the crime he would have said so. Translation: We did not clear him of this crime. If you read the report, there is serious evidence of obstruction.”

“He places the responsibility squarely on the shoulder of Congress.”

--On the need for impeaching hearings:

“My thinking has evolved over the last couple of weeks, because the obstruction has continued. . . .I’m not trying to lead a bandwagon, but having answered this question nearly every day for the last year, I felt that when my mind changed, I had an obligation to let my constituents know.”

What changed? “Ordering people to defy subpoenas. Using the Department of Justice, continuing to call on them to prosecute his political enemies; now giving a partisan attorney general the power to declassify intelligence secrets to root out patriotic people in the FBI and Justice Department who were just trying to protect the country, and to continue to accuse the FBI of treason.”

“You could argue he (Trump) is trying to goad us into impeachment. Maybe. You could argue he’s just testing the boundaries of what he can get away with, knowing that if no one checks him, the boundaries will no longer exist.”

“There has to be some institution in our government that is willing to say this matters; that there are still rules. Some institution has to hold that line. Because if nobody holds that line, there is no line.”

--On the politics of impeachment:

“He could shoot a guy on Fifth Avenue and the Senate wouldn’t convict him. That’s the dilemma. We are forced to assume this responsibility, knowing the other side won’t act responsibly.”

“If we do it and the Senate acquits, where does that leave us? That’s still a strong argument. It’s a balance. What causes the most damage – the House doing this and the Senate acquitting, or doing nothing?”

Would it benefit Trump in the end politically? Didn’t the Republican impeachment of Clinton help Clinton? “The conventional wisdom in 2000 was that the whole thing wound up hurting Gore. Who knows? I don’t think there’s any precedent.”

“Nobody knows what the political impact will be, and therefore it is a risk. But when in doubt, it’s probably best to do the right thing.”

--Odds and ends:

On Mueller testifying at impeachment hearings: “It would be much harder for him to resist. His sense of duty and his sense of process would lead him to understand the importance of his role in front of such an inquiry.”

On momentum towards impeachment: “The president is the generator of the momentum. It’s likely that if you’re not there yet, he’s going to do something that will persuade you -- next week, next month, or at some point. He’s engaged in a systemic effort to free himself from the boundaries of law and ethics and morality. At some point, everyone is going to reach their limit. . . .I know plenty of people who represent districts similar to mine who agree with me, and they haven’t said anything publicly.”

On what he’d like to be doing instead: “Gateway, health care, gun violence. That is still my first priority, and it has to be. But this other thing is inescapable.”

Malinowski is a freshman Democrat who defeated Republican Leonard Lance in the 2018 election, when Democrats took over four of the five Republicans seats in New Jersey. He won by five points in a swing district, and is likely to next face state Sen. Tom Kean, R-Union, who announced his candidacy last month.

More: Tom Moran columns

Tom Moran may be reached at tmoran@starledger.com or call (973) 836-4909. Follow him on Twitter @tomamoran. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.