The Justice Department has released special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report and titled it, dryly, “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.” A more accurate title would be “A President’s Guide to Obstructing Justice and Getting Away With It.”



Though partially redacted in places, the report offers a thorough and bracing account of President Donald Trump’s actions before and after the 2016 presidential election. The first half considers whether he colluded with Russians to help his candidacy, while the latter considers whether the president interfered with the collusion investigation—which is to say, whether he obstructed justice. Neither question is answered decisively. Mueller didn’t find evidence of a criminal conspiracy, but provided substantial evidence that Trump’s campaign sought the Russians’ help in 2016. He left the obstruction decision to Attorney General William Barr but provided substantial evidence that Trump at least attempted to obstruct justice.

Over the course of the 182-page section on obstruction, Mueller weaves a semi-chronological narrative of Trump’s responses to the Russia investigation and its offshoots. He focuses on ten specific instances where Trump may have obstructed justice. In some of those cases, such as the president’s efforts to mislead the public about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, Mueller notes that the available evidence fell short of what would be required to prove obstruction of justice under federal law.

In other cases, Trump’s tendency to offer a whirlwind of rationales for his actions made it hard at times for investigators to conclusively establish his motives. “Some evidence indicates that the President believed that the erroneous perception he was under investigation harmed his ability to manage domestic and foreign affairs, particularly in dealings with Russia,” Mueller wrote. “Other evidence, however, indicates that the president wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign.” Since the obstruction statute requires prosecutors to prove a “corrupt intent,” those plausible alternatives could undermine a criminal prosecution.

In still other cases, however, Mueller is unambiguous that the president did something wrong. Perhaps the clearest example is the July 2017 episode where Trump ordered Don McGahn, the White House counsel at the time, to fire Mueller. Trump was well aware that he was crossing a line: McGahn’s shorthand notes recount that he warned the president at one point that carrying out his orders would be “another fact used to claim obst[ruction] of just[ice].” When Trump insisted, McGahn refused to carry out the order, Mueller says, “for fear of being seen as triggering another Saturday Night Massacre.” Only then did Trump not pursue the matter further.