Professor Dan Hemel on Twitter (Apr. 19, 2019, 12:02 PM) <https://twitter.com/DanielJHemel/status/1119315342432571393>: “Trump told White House Counsel Don McGahn to lie to Robert Mueller. Trump’s best defense? That he really wanted McGahn to lie to 330 million people, of whom Mueller was only one.” (emphasis added)
Scott R. Anderson et al., What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis, Lawfare (Apr. 18, 2019, 11:43 PM), <https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis> (characterizing Mueller’s report as: “creating a rigorous factual record concerning both Russian intervention in 2016 and presidential obstruction of the effort to investigate that intervention” (emphasis added)).
On Conlawprof, Professor AAA wrote: “Judge Wright’s findings [from Clinton v. Jones] are no less damning (probably more) than those of Mr. Mueller.” (emphasis added).
I, for one, do not see any obvious equivalence between an unbiased independent judge’s “findings” in an opinion after the parties have had notice and opportunity to be heard, and a prosecutors office’s report which attempts to marshal one side of the evidence—where the object of the investigation (i.e., investigation=failed prosecution) has no opportunity to respond. As far as I know, the Special Counsel's report is not even sworn to, as one would swear (or affirm) to any ordinary affidavit or declaration offered into evidence.
Seth Barrett Tillman, Twitter, Lawfare, and Conlawprof, New Reform Club (Apr. 19, 2019, 3:45 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/04/today-on-lawfare-and-on-conlawprof.html>.
Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Have a look around New Reform Club—my co-bloggers do good work.