WASHINGTON — Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 election turned a year old on Thursday.
He is showing no signs of slowing down.
The milestone might not mean much to Mueller, but it has important public significance. History has shown that the public does not have unlimited patience with independent or special counsels, and Mueller faces a particular challenge maintaining the confidence of the citizenry, given the regular attacks he faces from President Trump, who marked the anniversary of Mueller’s appointment with a series of early morning tweets suggesting the FBI spied on his campaign and Mueller had not found what he was looking for.
‘‘Congratulations America, we are now into the second year of the greatest Witch Hunt in American History . . . and there is still No Collusion and No Obstruction. The only Collusion was that done by Democrats who were unable to win an Election despite the spending of far more money!’’ Trump wrote.
In another development Thursday, Trump’s lawyers predicted Mueller will not indict the president if the proseuctor finds wrongdoing in his investigation of Trump campaign links to Russia. The Trump lawyers said Mueller’s investigators told them that he would adhere to the Justice Department’s view that the Constitution bars prosecuting sitting presidents.
The disclosure provides the greatest clarity to date about how Mueller, who is also investigating whether Trump tried to obstruct the inquiry itself, may proceed. If he concludes that he has evidence that the president broke the law, experts say, he now has only two main options while Trump remains in office: He could write a report about the president’s conduct that Congress might use as part of any impeachment proceedings, or he could deem the president as an unindicted coconspirator in court documents.
Trump’s lead lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said that one member of Mueller’s office acknowledged that the president could not be indicted. Two or three days later, Giuliani said, Mueller’s office called another of the president’s lawyers, Jay Sekulow, to say that prosecutors would adhere to the Justice Department view.
“They can’t indict,’’ Giuliani said. “They can’t indict. Because if they did, it would be dismissed quickly. There’s no precedent for a president being indicted.’’
At the one-year mark, that apparent assurance is some measure of relief for Trump, but the investigation is continuing. Here is a status check of Mueller’s probe, and a look at what could happen next:
■ Mueller still hasn’t answered the biggest question: Did the Trump campaign coordinate with Russia to influence the 2016 election?
But his team has charged 19 people, as well as three companies, and secured five guilty pleas.
Among the guilty pleas are those from three former Trump campaign or administration officials: national security adviser Michael Flynn, deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, and campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.
All are cooperating with Mueller’s probe. In their pleas, they have often admitted to being deceitful about contacts with Russians or those acting for Russian interests.
Mueller has also indicted 13 people and three companies who were part of a Russian Internet troll operation that used online propaganda to push voters toward Trump. The Russians made contact with Trump campaign staffers in Florida, but they used fake identities. Mueller did not allege that Trump staffers were witting participants in the scheme.
■ Mueller’s main mandate was to investigate possible coordination, but his probe has expanded.
He charged Gates and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example, with crimes related to their business dealings and work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine long before the Trump campaign. He is looking, or has looked, at the business dealings of Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, though that case seems largely centered in the US attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York.
Mueller is also exploring whether the president obstructed justice on a number of fronts, especially in allegedly asking FBI Director James Comey to let go of the Flynn investigation, firing Comey shortly thereafter, and toying with firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his recusal from the Russia case. After Sessions recused himself from the case, his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, took over and appointed Mueller.
■ Why is this taking so long?
Trump and his allies have long called for an end to the probe, and they were joined in recent weeks by Sessions and Vice President Mike Pence, who both said publicly they hoped the probe would conclude. But legal analysts say, compared with other special and independent counsel probes, Mueller is moving remarkably fast.
‘‘When you’re talking about an investigation that involves international activity, with a foreign government and foreign actors who have no incentive to be cooperative, such an investigation takes a lot of time,’’ said Jacob Frenkel, who worked in the independent counsel’s office in the late 1990s and is now at the firm Dickinson Wright.
By comparison, it took nearly a year and a half for the independent counsel to bring charges in what is now known as the Whitewater scandal — which began by exploring Bill and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in a suspicious real estate venture — against Arkansas’ governor and two others. That case stretched on for nearly eight years, drawing in multiple independent counsels and exploring a wide range of allegations about the Clintons. They were never charged, and Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted and removed, for obstructing justice.
‘‘Judged by historical standards, I think that the special counsel has amassed a remarkable record of achievement in the first year of his tenure,’’ said David Kris, a former assistant attorney general for national security who now runs the Culper Partners consulting firm. ‘‘It’s fast and it’s productive, and there’s obviously more to come.’’
■ Are Trump’s attacks working?
The president has attacked the special counsel team relentlessly — decrying it as a witch hunt, claiming its members are biased against him, and asserting he did not collude with Russia. He’s been aided by conservatives in Congress, who have sought essentially to investigate the investigation.
Trump reacted on Twitter on Thursday to recent news reports that there was a top-secret source providing intelligence to the FBI. Trump’s allies are waging an increasingly aggressive campaign to undercut the Russia investigation by exposing the role of the FBI source.
‘‘Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI ‘SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT,’ ’’ Trump tweeted. He added, ‘‘If so, this is bigger than Watergate!’’
By and large, the public still supports the probe, but legal analysts say that will not last forever. Indeed, a Monmouth University poll found that the percentage of Americans who say the probe should continue has shrunk over time, though a majority still want Mueller to keep working.
■ What will happen as the election approaches?
The Justice Department has a longstanding tradition of not taking overt steps in an investigation close to an election that might affect the outcome of that election. Because of that, many expect Mueller’s probe might slow as November approaches.
There will be some processes that Mueller’s team can’t avoid. Manafort, for example, is scheduled to go on trial in July and again in September.
■ What is next, and how does this end?
Many in Washington ultimately expect Mueller to produce a report memorializing what he has found, in addition to laying out much of his work through criminal charges.
Trump’s fiercest critics hope Mueller’s work ultimately leads to impeachment.
‘‘Look, I think that whenever you conclude an investigation, you’re not going to keep everybody happy with the result,’’ said Robert Ray, who served as independent counsel toward the end of the Whitewater investigation during the Clinton presidency. ‘‘No matter what you do, there are gonna be people on both sides who are going to be unhappy with whatever conclusion you come to.’’
Material from The New York Times was used in this report.
