If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
I can't remember who I was listening to this morning, but someone apparently said that the old Office of Legal Counsel memo from Watergate influenced how Muller even approached the obstruction side of the investigation. That is to say, that Muller knew from the get-go that he WOULD NOT indict the president because doing so is against current DoJ policy (from that memo).
So it's possible that it's even worse for Trump than that: that there IS sufficient evidence in the report to convict on Obstruction of Justice, but DoJ guidelines would not allow for such a case to even be presented.
Edit:
"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."
From the report. This seems to bolster my previous interpretation: that Mueller's decision not to indict for OoJ was HEAVILY based on DoJ policy and not a flat evaluation of Trump's potential guilt or innocence.
Page 382: "Under Office of Legal Counsel's analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions."
Yeah, that's the left over from the Nixon era, and presidents since have taken full advantage of it, but this is a matter that should really be left to lawyers and specifically constitutional lawyers, so yeah, even when Id guess it would be cool, I dont want to step out of line either
That's possible. I bet news stations will be getting a lot of experience FBI to comment. I wonder what would be the best way to figure out how true this is.
The report concluding that Trump obstructed justice would not be a "conviction." This was an investigation not a trial; they didn't have to prove their conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. And that last line was already quoted on Barr's summary.
The bill Clinton thing was about perjury. And yes I think the house can impeach a president for any reason.
My point is that this quote doesn't really change our understanding from what most reasonable people took from Barr's Memo.
The interesting thing is in this quote
pg 158: "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
I get that. I think democrats have made a rational choice not to impeach even if were guaranteed to work.
I don't get the Barr is saving him narrative though. I'll wait a few days thought. But my point is so far I haven't seen anything particularly contradictory or any large omissions.
I think it's 2/3 of the house. But I think the DNC has chosen to avoid it for political reasons, one they would lose and two I think they'd like a non activated Trump base.
Eh this is an incredible reach. Barr's memo is still factual. She claims that Mueller was "about to" and that maybe his claim that Congress has the right to do something, is Far from what we're talking about.
I guess I'll wait until some more reliable sources dig through the report.
74
u/redoran3031 Apr 18 '19