Did Mueller possibly "recuse" himself from the indictment decision?

[ScratchCat]

A friend brought this up.

Remember when Trump was tweeting about Mueller being "conflicted" and would never give any details except some claim about a golf course fee dispute many years ago? Is it possible that - out of an abundance of caution - Mueller decided that he would not give Trump an opportunity to have the charges dropped with a favorable judge based upon the claim that Mueller was "biased" and that's why he "punted" on the decision? Did Trumps lawyers tell him if he indicted Trump or family they would fight it "to the end" and use his "conflicts bias" to ruin him and his family? Did he think Rosenstein would ultimately make the decision?

There has to be a legit reason Bob Mueller didn't ask for an indictment. I do not think he simply through his hands in the air and said "its equal on both sides". Further, when Barr says Mueller gave "evidence on both sides", I assume the only "evidence" Mueller referred to that would be in Trump's favor is the technical stuff like the President having the legal right to fire the FBI director, AG, etc. This is where Barr is probably being completely misleading on the obstruction bit.

[whathehell]

1. Good question -- I wish I knew.

I want the Dems to supoena him AND Barr so we can get some real understanding on this.

[Fred Sandman]

2. Remember: two years to investigate, two days to 'summarize', one forever coverup begins.

[duforsure]

3. I was thinking the same thing,

And it was done that way for a good reason, and Mueller is the expert, so even though the situation looks bad, I do think it's all being done for a specific reason , and to reach the conclusion we want. All russia and putin conspirators with trump are all held accountable. This illegitimate President will be going down, it's just a matter of time before everything is exposed .

[FBaggins]

4. Nope

That isn't how it works. He was initially appointed because Sessions had a conflict. If Mueller had a conflict, he would be out and the then-current AG (or acting AG) would select a replacement. He can't semi-recuse and let someone under him make the decision.

It's probably too early to bring this up, but I think Mueller was doing us a favor (and doing so intentionally). If he did make the prosecutorial decision (rather than punting to Barr), he almost certainly would be forced to say that no charges were warranted - because he had already concluded a lack of an underlying crime and couldn't get to motive because he couldn't get Trump to testify.

The best thing that he could do in those circumstances is to say that it's an open question. Yes, that gives Barr an opportunity to answer the question... but it also means that Congress gets to question that determination and gets to bring the facts to light with their own investigation/allegations.

The bad news is that few here on DU appear to understand how hard an obstruction charge would be in these circumstances (because they don't understand the legal standard for the crime)... but the good news is that the public doesn't understand the difference either. "He fired Comey because he wanted the investigation to go away" is not obstruction if he actually believed that he didn't do anything that needed investigating and it was all a witch hunt... but it sure sounds like it is. Democrats in Congress will be on the side that is much easier to sell to the public... and Mueller's strategy made that possible.

[LiberalFighter]

5. No!

Mueller was providing the results of the investigation.

Wrong about technical stuff too. A President has the right to hire and fire. But, not for the purpose of obstructing justice.