You may want to revisit what Mueller's official statement was about the indictment stuff. The report did address 10 potential obstruction complaints but then also stated that the evidence didn't support them. Mueller specifically testified that he didn't agree with any of the Democrat committee members' conclusion about Trump having obstructed justice. I watched a lot of the testimony, read a fair amount of the report and the transcripts of the questioning.
So are you saying that AG Barr has illegally withheld information about the Mueller investigation from Congress? That is a big claim. I bet Adam Schiff let you into his secret evidence locker and you were able to get a glimpse of all the damning materials.
Wow...so wrong. No wonder you think the Mueller report was a nothingburger. That's not at all what Mueller wrote or said--are you confusing Mueller with Barr?
Mueller laid out the 10 instances of obstruction and all the evidence, and said it was not up to him to determine whether or not they were crimes, because he was following DOJ OLC guidance that the President could not be indicted in office. He specifically sought to avoid indictments at the START of his investigation. In fact, he didn't even want to hint whether or not Trump committed a crime. Mueller very clearly stated that his office would "not preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct"--i.e. he was punting to Congress.
Because I doubt you ever read the actual report, re-read Mueller's final statement wrt obstruction:
"And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president can not be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation it was
bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.
The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.
First, the opinion
explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things,
that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.
And second,
the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.
And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness.
It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.
So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated, and from them, we concluded that we would —
would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office's — that is the office's final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president."
Facebook
Twitter