Are there legal implications from Mueller?

ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams weighs in on how to legally interpret the findings of the Mueller report and Trump's declaration for an investigation of "the other side."
2:01 | 03/25/19

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:

{{nextVideo.title}}

{{nextVideo.description}}

Skip to this video now

Now Playing:

{{currentVideo.title}}

Comments
Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Are there legal implications from Mueller?
much. We bring in Dan Abrams now for more. No collusion. What would be the case for obstruction? Look, think you feed to take a step back and talk about exactly what preet was saying. About the fact that the attorney general is saying there was no obstruction. I don't think there will be a case for obstruction unless it's in the congress. It won't be a legal case. It will be a political case. The question becomes, was the attorney general overstepping his bounds by doing that? The reason you retain a special counsel is so the attorney general, and the deputy attorney general, the people appointed we the president, do not make this sort of decision about the president. That's why cow have a special counsel. So, the special counsel gave us the final word on the question of Russia conspiracy. No case. Robert Mueller did not give us the final word on obstruction. It makes you think he's saying, let's give this to congress. Here are the reasons for. Here are the reasons against. And then bill Barr comes in and says, wait, I'm going to take this, though that's not supposed to be his role. There's an intriguing line in he says though most of the president's actions not all of them are. There are still things that the president did related to obstruction that we don't know about. Yes. This letter was written very carefully. Even though it was quick and fast, the language is important. There is no question there is additional material that we don't know about. But, you have to be clear. This is a big win for the the fact that on the most important issue, collusion, conspiracy with the Russians, Robert Mueller didn't find any evidence. The president has every right to do a victory lap. He's saying if there's no underlying crime, that's no on instruction. Martha Stewart would war that. She was just charged with lying to investigators. Keep that this mind. Thank you, Dan. A lot of other stories to get to this morning. Take a look at this on the high seas. Hundreds of cruise ship

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"duration":"2:01","description":"ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams weighs in on how to legally interpret the findings of the Mueller report and Trump's declaration for an investigation of \"the other side.\"","mediaType":"default","section":"ABCNews/GMA","id":"61921189","title":"Are there legal implications from Mueller?","url":"/GMA/News/video/legal-implications-mueller-report-61921189"}