Today Robert Mueller spoke for the first time since his report. Here is a link to the full transcript. Sane people agree the conspiracy theory of the Trump campaign working with Russia has long since been put to rest. The only area that seems muddy is the Obstruction of Justice question.

Pundits say Mueller wants Congress to Impeach the President. If Mueller wanted Congress to Impeach the President that sure was not clear to me. I thought Mueller did not care for Trump. If that is true then Mueller would never push for Impeachment. That would move Trump from the very likely winner of the 2020 election to the absolute locked in winner of the 2020 election.


The take away all the Pundits and Lawyers may have missed.

Mueller may have simply been pointing out a Special Counsel should never be used to investigate a President for a crime. Many in Washington think it is bogus to appoint a Special Counsel for this reason. Here are some highlighted quotes from Mueller that make the case for never using a Special Counsel again. (Full context further down on this page.)

Highlight Number 1:

if we 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.

Rules of logic would also dictate that if Mueller had confidence that the president clearly committed a crime he would have said so. However, rules of logic are not in play here as we will see.

Highlight Number 2 & 3:

a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.

Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

If that is true then what would have Mueller done if he discovered Trump committed a crime? This is an unknown.

Highlight Number 4 & 5:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president,…

Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

It seems unnecessary to bring that up since there are no crimes committed and no co-conspirators charged now. Not as it related to President Trump. I suppose Mueller is justifying the 35 million dollars spent and the 2 years of time used to investigate. Clear thinking people would wonder why he took this on in the first place.

Highlight Number 6 & 7:

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.

it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

In other words, Mueller and his team could NEVER have brought an accusation against the President! This is where I believe Mueller indicates that a Special Counsel should never be used again. They cannot even bring an accusation of a crime because it would be unfair. So, if the pundits & lawyers believe that Mueller was bringing a criminal accusation they are sadly mistaken.

Highlight Number 8:

That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president.

There you have it. You are left with a big fat NOTHING! Who in their right mind would ever appoint a Special Counsel again?

Highlight Number 9:

And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.

For all those who believe Meuller thinks  Barr acted in bad faith, wrong again! Will the Democrats in the house start Impeachment proceedings against President Trump? It is anybody’s guess. Just like you can indict a ham sandwich you can impeach a ham sandwich.


 

Transcript in Context - Click to Open

Below, is the pertinent part of the transcript on obstruction from Mueller in context while highlighting key points:

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. 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 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 longstanding department policy, a president cannot 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. A 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 not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.

The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Pin It on Pinterest

%d bloggers like this: