Mueller’s report essentially accuses Trump of witness tampering – one of the offences Republicans impeached Clinton on. Here’s how they explained their votes

Trump tampered with witnesses. These Senate Republicans voted to oust Bill Clinton for doing just that

Trump tampered with witnesses. These Senate Republicans voted to oust Bill Clinton for doing just that

Robert Mueller’s report effectively accused Donald Trump of obstructing justice by witness tampering, one of the offences that led Republicans to impeach Bill Clinton 20 years ago.

Mueller’s team found Trump repeatedly made efforts to “encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation” into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, the special counsel’s final report said.

Democrats vow to investigate report Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress Read more

Trump “made it known” that Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman, could receive a pardon, according to Mueller. The president also urged Manafort and Michael Cohen, his legal fixer, not to “flip” and help Mueller’s inquiry.

In both these cases, Mueller found evidence that Trump acted with the intent of hindering the investigation – a necessary component for prosecuting witness tampering and obstruction of justice generally.

In addition, Mueller found that Trump asked senior advisers to tell Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser, to “stay strong”, and asked for two senior White House officials who were witnesses in the investigation to create fake records that would help protect him.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Donald Trump and Michael Flynn at a rally in Grand Junction, Colorado, on 18 October 2016. Photograph: George Frey/Getty Images

More than three pages describing Trump’s potentially obstructive actions towards yet another witness – seemingly his longtime friend and adviser Roger Stone – were completely redacted in Mueller’s report because they related to an “an ongoing matter”. Stone is being prosecuted on federal charges.

It is against federal law to tamper with a witness in an “official proceeding” such as Mueller’s investigation. But Mueller’s team declined to conclude whether or not Trump’s actions were criminal, in part because justice department policy holds that sitting presidents may not be indicted.

In a move that has attracted sharp criticism from Democrats, William Barr, the attorney general, decided that Trump had not committed obstruction.

Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The obstruction charge said he committed witness tampering by trying to “corruptly influence” the potential testimony of his secretary Betty Currie, and urged the former White House intern Monica Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit in a lawsuit against him.

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. But 14 current Republican senators, some of whom were then serving in the House, voted either to impeach or convict Clinton on the obstruction charge. Some specifically cited his actions toward the witnesses when explaining their votes.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Mitch McConnell. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP

Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

Following his deposition, the president had to decide what to do with his loyal secretary, Ms Betty Currie. And, again, the undisputed evidence shows that the president took the path of lies and deceit. Contrary to federal obstruction of justice laws and contrary to judge Wright’s protective order … President Clinton left the deposition, went back to the White House and called Ms Currie at home to ask her to come to the White House the next day, which, I might add, was a Sunday. … I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.

Senate floor, 12 February 1999

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Chuck Grassley. Photograph: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Chuck Grassley, Iowa

It is clear to me that the president committed serious crimes when he coached his secretary, Betty Currie, and when he misled his aides Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta … These actions weren’t just outrageous and morally wrong. They were also illegal. They were a direct assault on the integrity of the judicial process.

Statement, 12 February 1999

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Lindsey Graham. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Lindsey Graham, South Carolina

The question I have that needs to desperately be answered by somebody is – when he approached Ms Currie to coach her in the fashion he did, is that a crime? Because I don’t want people at home to be confused that they can do these things, because if they do what the president did, in my opinion, they will wind up in jail.

Interview with CNN, 27 January 1999

[N]obody because of their position in society has the right to cheat and to get somebody to lie for them, even as the president. That means we’re not a nation of men or kings. We’re a nation of laws, and that’s what this case has always been about to me … He turned the judicial system upside down, every way but loose. He sent his friends to lie for him. He lied for himself.

Speaking on the Senate floor while a House impeachment manager, 8 February 1999

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Pat Roberts. Photograph: Scott J Ferrell/CQ-Roll Call,Inc.

Pat Roberts, Kansas

We in Kansas know that you don’t call witnesses in the middle of the night unless you want to sway them. The president did so. We in Kansas know that you don’t urge hiding legal evidence under the bed unless you want to affect the outcome of a legal proceeding. The president did so. … Do these actions rise to the level envisioned by our founding fathers in the constitution as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ so warranting removal from office? Our constitution requires that the threshold for that judgment must be set by each senator sitting as a juror. I believe an open-minded individual applying Kansas common sense would reach the conclusion that I reached.

Statement, 12 February 1999

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Mike Crapo. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call,Inc.

Mike Crapo, Idaho

While most of the national attention has focused on the tawdriness of this matter, this intense fixation on sensationalism diverts attention from the true issues – the true issues related to abuse of the power of the presidency, perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

Statement, 20 December 1998

Tampering with the truth-seeking functions of the law undermines our justice system and the foundations on which our freedoms lie. All Americans must abide by the rule of law, including the president of the United States, who is the highest official in the land and who has the additional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

Opinion article in the Idaho Falls Post Register, 21 February 1999

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Mike Enzi. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call,Inc.

Mike Enzi, Wyoming

The president’s lawyers have argued that the president made these statements to refresh his recollection or to find out what Ms Currie knew in the event of a press avalanche. Neither of these explanations is plausible. It is impossible to refresh one’s recollection with false, leading questions. It is also impossible to find out what someone else knew if you tell them what they are supposed to believe. The plausibility of either of these explanations is entirely discounted when you consider that the president called Betty Currie in a second time, on January 20, to ‘remind’ her of these statements. The most likely explanation for these statements is far more sinister. That the president was intending to influence the testimony of a likely witness in a federal civil rights proceeding. President Clinton was, in fact, trying to get Betty Currie to join him in his web of deception and obstruction of justice.

Statement entered into Senate record, 22 February 1999

Facebook Twitter Pinterest James Inhofe. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

James Inhofe, Oklahoma

Isn’t it true that [the federal law on witness tampering] criminalizes anyone who corruptly persuades or engages in misleading conduct with the intent to influence the testimony of any person in an official proceeding?

Question co-signed by Inhofe submitted in impeachment proceedings, 23 January 1999

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Richard Shelby. Photograph: Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters

Richard Shelby, Alabama

Shelby said Clinton’s January 1998 meeting with Ms Currie, after returning from his own testimony in the Jones lawsuit, was a key factor in his decision to vote for conviction on the obstruction charge. House managers accused Clinton of using that meeting to try to influence Currie’s testimony. ‘That was a strong component,’ Shelby said. ‘But it’s not just one thing in the obstruction evidence. If you put it all together, I thought it was beyond a reasonable doubt.’

Associated Press report, 12 February 1999

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Roy Blunt. Photograph: Joshua Roberts/Reuters

Roy Blunt, Missouri

There is clear evidence that President Clinton committed perjury on two or more occasions, and urged others to obstruct justice. These are serious felonious acts that strike at the heart of our judicial system. Oaths taken in the American system of government are serious commitments to truth and the rule of law. Violating these oaths or causing others to impede the investigation into such acts are serious matters that meet the standard for impeachment.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Richard Burr. Photograph: Reuters File Photo/Reuters

Richard Burr, North Carolina

I believe the facts presented by the judiciary committee prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton repeatedly lied to a grand jury and encouraged a witness before that grand jury to provide false information. The United States is a nation of laws, not men. And I do not believe we can ignore the facts or disregard the constitution so that the president can be placed above the law.

Statement, 19 December 1998

Jerry Moran, Kansas

It is clear that President Clinton on numerous occasions lied to a federal grand jury, lied in a civil proceeding affecting the civil rights of an American citizen, and orchestrated an attempt to obstruct justice. … The untruthful actions of the president are not mere technical violations of federal law; rather, the president’s lies, obfuscation and overt acts to obstruct justice are serious and felonious, and they tear at the essential foundation of our judicial system.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Rob Portman. Photograph: Odd Andersen/AFP/Getty Images

Rob Portman, Ohio

I believe the evidence of serious wrongdoing is simply too compelling to be swept aside. I am particularly troubled by the clear evidence of lying under oath in that it must be the bedrock of our judicial system. I believe the long-term consequence to this country of not acting on these serious charges before us far outweigh the consequences of following what the constitution provides for and bringing this matter to trial in the United States Senate.

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

[Allegations that Clinton urged Lewinsky to lie] would amount to a federal felony, and that would mean serious, serious problems for President Clinton.

Interview with the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 23 January 1998

Facebook Twitter Pinterest John Thune. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA

John Thune, South Dakota