A former federal prosecutor said Friday that he has charged and convicted people for obstruction of justice with a “fraction” of the evidence presented against President Trump Donald John TrumpBiden on Trump's refusal to commit to peaceful transfer of power: 'What country are we in?' Romney: 'Unthinkable and unacceptable' to not commit to peaceful transition of power Two Louisville police officers shot amid Breonna Taylor grand jury protests MORE in special counsel Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) MuellerCNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill's 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE’s report.

“If this was any person other than the president of the United States, I can say as a former prosecutor, this would be a knock-down case for obstruction,” said CNN legal analyst Elie Honig. “I’ve charged and convicted on obstruction of justice based on a fraction of this evidence.”

"If this was any person other than the President of the United States...this would be a knock down case for obstruction of justice," says former federal prosecutor @eliehonig as he lays out his biggest takeaways from the Mueller report. https://t.co/QtOw6uvA9r pic.twitter.com/ydPr42khbg — New Day (@NewDay) April 19, 2019

Honig said the “big sticking point” in the Mueller report was the long-standing Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president.

ADVERTISEMENT

He added that Attorney General William Barr Bill BarrHarris faces pivotal moment with Supreme Court battle Hillicon Valley: DOJ proposes tech liability shield reform to Congress | Treasury sanctions individuals, groups tied to Russian malign influence activities | House Republican introduces bill to set standards for self-driving cars McCarthy threatens motion to oust Pelosi if she moves forward with impeachment MORE “misrepresented” the facts to the American public when he said during a Thursday press conference that the policy did not play a role in the decisionmaking process.

Barr said in remarks before the release of the report that Mueller “did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgement” regarding the allegations, adding that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Rod RosensteinDOJ kept investigators from completing probe of Trump ties to Russia: report Five takeaways from final Senate Intel Russia report FBI officials hid copies of Russia probe documents fearing Trump interference: book MORE concluded there was not sufficient evidence to charge Trump.

“In fact, when you look at the report, Mueller really wrestles with that decision and I think it’s [the policy] the only reason that he did not charge the president,” Honig said. “And why, I think, what it seems like Robert Mueller was trying to do was send it over to Congress for their consideration.”

Mueller wrote in his report that his office accepted the legal conclusion drawn by the Office of Legal Counsel, which found that the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutional assigned functions.”

The report states that Mueller was unable to “conclusively" determine during the course of the investigation that no criminal conduct occurred regarding whether Trump obstructed justice.

“[I]f 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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” the report states.

“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” it states.

Mueller’s team analyzed 10 "episodes" in which the president potentially obstructed justice.