The report points out ten cases of possible abuse in a court of law

Robert mueller's Rysslandsutredning accommodates ten passages where the special prosecutor is debating whether or not Donald Trump has tried to impede the course of justice – guilty to the criminal act of ”an obstruction of justice”, about abuse in a court of law.

Several of the events that Mueller takes up are well acquainted. That when the Trump kicked then-FBI director James Comey in may 2017, he investigated the links between Russia and Trumpkampanjen. Mueller examines Trump's attempt to dismiss Rysslandsutredaren, that is to say, Mueller himself, and the president's attempts to limit the scope of his investigation.

Trump's attempt to prevent the spread of the e-mails about the much talked about meeting between a Russian lawyer and the members of the Trumpkampanjen in the family's skyscraper in Manhattan in June 2016. Mueller is investigating on Trump's persistent attempt to get former minister of justice, Jeff Session to interfere in the Rysslandsutredningen, despite the fact that the Session had declared themselves disqualified. Mueller also writes about Trump's attempt to gain the White house-the lawyer Don McGahn to allocate Mueller before he was finished with his work.

Despite the ten examples according to Mueller that he can't hold that Trump actually has been guilty of abuse in a court of law. But Mueller is also careful to stress that he is not nor can it absolve the Trump from the crime. If Mueller had felt convinced he had acquitted Trump, he writes. But: ”On the basis of the facts and the applicable legal standards, we may not, however, reach the conclusion”.

This – that Mueller leaves open the question – can be interpreted as a pass to congress, where the members can make a political assessment of the situations that Mueller is investigating from a legal perspective. Mueller writes explicitly that he reached the conclusion that congress has the authority to prevent a president uses his authority in a corrupt manner, and thus can protect the justice department's integrity. The Trump has challenged at least ten times.

(likely) on the impeachment, a political avsättningsprocess of the president. Nancy Pelosi, the democratic speaker of the house of representatives, has previously stated that impeachment is not something she is considering: ”Trump is not worth it,” she said. But other members think differently and mueller's ten examples of possible abuse in a court of law will likely to whip off a new debate about how far a president can go in motarbetandet of its own judicial apparatus, but that the opposition is trying to prevent the behavior.

U.S. attorney general William Barr speaks at the press conference. Photo: Win McNamee/AFP

Many will now argue that the newly installed minister of justice, William Barr made a too biased summary of the Rysslandsrapporten. During the press conference one hour before the publication of the report repeated the Barr presidential favoritfras ”no collusion” (no collusion) six or seven times. Magazine, New Yorkers Washingtonkorrespondent Susan Glasser wrote that Barr's summary of the Muellerrapporten sounded like a compilation of Trump's own tweets on the matter.

Barr said that he and the assistant minister for justice, Rod Rosenstein to disagree with Mueller concerned about some of the legal reasoning. These is a question as to whether Trump has been guilty of abuse in a court of law. Congress learn to force William Barr to testify before justitieutskotten in congress: how is it that Barr can absolve Trump when Mueller couldn't it? Justitieutskotten learn also call Mueller himself to the hearings, Barr said during the press conference that he will not put a stop to it.

of Rysslandsrapporten is all about the contacts between the Trumpkampanjen, the site Wikileaks and Russian intelligence. Wikileaks allowed to publish the drifts of the hacked e-mails from within the Democratic party – at times that would benefit Trumpkampanjen and bothering Clintonlägret. Mueller has explored whether Trumpmedarbetare was aware of the spread of the e-mails. It seemed to have and Trumpkampanjen figured that the spread would affect their campaign in a positive sense.

However, broke Trumpmedarbetarna not against any law, because there is no evidence that they were involved in the actual hack of the e-mails.

Martin Gelin: Trump saw mueller's investigation as an existential threat

Link to the graphics