Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Mueller says on camera that Trump wasn’t exonerated from obstruction of justice

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the House Judiciary Committee chair, got the special counsel to say that right at the beginning.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller listens to House Judiciary chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) before testifying on July 24, 2019.
Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller listens to House Judiciary chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) before testifying on July 24, 2019.
Robert Mueller listens to House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) before testifying on July 24, 2019.
Alex Wong/Getty Images

In just five minutes, House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) prompted special counsel Robert Mueller to knock down President Donald Trump’s main talking points about “no obstruction.”

Nadler, as the panel’s chair, got to ask the long-anticipated hearing’s first questions. He used the opportunity both to set the tone for Wednesday morning and to get Mueller to refute the president’s repeated claim that he didn’t obstruct justice during Mueller’s investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

And it worked. Here’s the exchange:

NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER: Correct, not what the report said.

NADLER: You wrote, “If 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, we are not able to reach that judgment.” Does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER: No.

For good measure, Nadler kept going, asking about Mueller to explain why Trump wasn’t exonerated:

NADLER: Your investigation found “multiple acts by the present that were capable of asserting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.” Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

NADLER: Can you explain what that finding means so the American people can understand?

MUELLER: The finding indicates that the president was not exonerated for the act he allegedly committed.

NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents in which the president sought to use this official power outside of usual channels to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right?

MUELLER: Correct.

This is not new information — it’s all in Mueller’s publicly available report.

Yet the exchange between Nadler and Mueller on live television was still monumental. Trump and his Republican allies continue to falsely claim that the report found that he didn’t obstruct justice while in office (in fact, the president did so just a few hours before Wednesday’s hearing).

Hearing Mueller unequivocally state that his report did not say Trump was exonerated of that crime was powerful, especially considering that many Americans (including members of Congress and even the current FBI director) have not read every word of the Mueller report.

What’s more, Nadler later asked if Trump could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice after he leaves office. Mueller simply responded: “True.”

Let’s be clear about what happened: At the very beginning of the hearing, Nadler got Mueller to say that Trump could still be in potential legal trouble once he leaves office for possibly obstructing justice, and that the president’s claims about the report’s findings are false.

Nadler came prepared — and now Trump has a lot of backtracking to do (not that he will).

More in Politics

Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
Trump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expectedTrump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expected
Politics

As Trump heads to China, attention and resources are being shifted from Asia to yet another war in the Middle East.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
Are far-right politics just the new normal?Are far-right politics just the new normal?
Politics

Liberals are preparing for a longer war with right-wing populists than they once expected.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Logoff
Flavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA headFlavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA head
The Logoff

Why Marty Makary is out at the FDA, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Virginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymanderVirginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymander
Politics

Democrats just handed the Supreme Court’s Republicans a loaded weapon.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
Can Trump lower gas prices?Can Trump lower gas prices?
The Logoff

What suspending the gas tax would mean for you, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters