Why didn't Mueller say this...

[SHRED]

That he did find obstruction of justice but was bound by rules not to indict a sitting President.

Why not?

[exboyfil]

1. Because he is a Republican?

[Baitball Blogger]

8. As good an explanation as any other.

Time to stop thinking that Republicans are the end-all when it comes to criminal justice policy and investigations.

What they once believed in turned out to be a policy of institutionalized racism and coddling of Republican law-breakers.

[Bettie]

43. That's my best guess

[triron]

2. Are you asking why he didn't go so far as to say Trump committed a crime?

Did Barr stop him?

[csziggy]

3. Because DOJ policy is to not make public statements about unindicted co-conspirators

Or anyone else that they have proof committed a crime but that they are not ready (or able by DOJ guidelines) to indict.

[SunSeeker]

4. That is NOT why. Mueller was a Special Prosecutor. It was his job to render an opinion.

He was appointed to investigate and determine if Trump committed any crimes. Even William Barr said that. Which is why when Mueller refused to answer whether or not Trump committed the crime of obstruction, Barr happily filled the void. And Mueller made plenty of statements about Trump in that report, so he clearly was not following that policy anyway. That is not why Mueller did not state whether Trump committed obstruction.
Mueller says explicitly in the report why he didn't answer the question. Did you read the report? It's right on page 2 of Volume 2. He didn't answer the question because of the DOJ policy of not indicting sitting Presidents. He thought it would be "unfair" to Trump to say he committed crimes, but that no charges will be brought, because "It affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name clearing before an impartial adjudicator."

Mueller seems to think Trump has no bully pulpit. Trump has the White House---a much bigger megaphone than any unindicted co-conspirator ever gets. Mueller's reasoning was ludicrous. He bent over backwards for Trump.

[csziggy]

5. Yeah, but I suspect that Mueller followed DOJ policy even as Special Prosecutor

I think he limited himself according to the policies by which he had always followed as a line prosecutor. I have not reviewed the Special Prosecutor laws about this, but I suspect that it is not specific enough on this point.

Aside from that, I also suspect that the full unredacted report has enough information that Congress and the American population would be ready to impeach when it is released - but the White House and Barr will fight that to their dying days.

And I believe that is the MAJOR weakness in the Special Prosecutor law - an investigation of any part of the Executive Branch should not be under the control of that branch. The way the law is currently written has been interpreted to mean that the full report only goes to the head of the DOJ. As we've seen, that means he can elect to not release it in full.

I think that law needs to be amended so that the complete final report MUST be released to Congress and to all Supreme Court members. The public should get to see everything except the grand jury testimony and parts involving national security. None of this crap allowing a person appointed by the guy who was being investigates - AFTER the investigation began) to redact huge portions of the report!

[SunSeeker]

6. No, he didn't follow that policy. He talked plenty about Trump's misdeeds in the report.

He just didn't answer the ultimate question, because he thought it would be "unfair" to Trump. Read the report, Volume II, page 2.

[StarfishSaver]

10. It WOULD have been unfair from a criminal justice standpoint, no matter how despicable Trump is

People blasted Comey for doing just what they're now insisting Mueller should have done. It was wrong and against DOJ policy when Comey did it and it would be just as wrong and against DOJ policy if Mueller had done it.

[SunSeeker]

17. There is no DOJ policy against a special counsel stating his opinion.

Comey was not a special counsel. He was not investigating a President. To say a president has no opportunity to defent himself in the court of public opinion is ridiculous. He has the biggest bully pulpit in the world. And Trump uses it all day long.

[StarfishSaver]

20. Actually, DOJ guidelines specifically prohibit such public comments

And they apply whether the investigation is being conducted by an FBI Director or a Special Counsel and whether the subject of the investigation is a private citizen or the president of the United States. (The DOJ Inspector General found that Comey had violated these guidelines in his public comments on the Clinton case).

You're certainly free to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. I suggest you do some research about the topic you're talking about before you try to expound on it.

[SunSeeker]

29. No, on the contrary, DOJ regs required Mueller to state and explain his opinion.

The deciision to prosecute or not is an opinion; an opinion the Special Counsel regs (28 CFR 600.8(c)) require be explained in a report, unlike the opinion of a regular line prosecutor, who by DOJ policy is just supposed to state he or she declined to prosecute and leave it at that. 

The CFR regs control over any "DOJ guideline."

[StarfishSaver]

13. He isn't Special Prosecutor. He's the Special Counsel

Two altogether different positions with compeletely different roles and responsibilities.

We haven't had a Special Prosescutor in decades. Ken Start was an Independent Counsel, another different position.
The Special Counsel was created by regulation after Starr's open-ended fishing expedition demonstrated serious problems with such Independent Counsel investigations.

[SunSeeker]

18. That is distinction without a difference in this case. His job was to render an opinion.

And explain that opinion.

As Mueller states on page 1 of Vol. II of the Report, citing the Special Counsel regs, he was required to provide the AG with "a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Prosecutor] reached."

A regular line prosecutor would NOT do that; he or she would be bound by the policy to simply state a decision to not prosecute was made. And leave it at that.

[StarfishSaver]

21. No, it's not a "distinction without a difference"

The positions were created under and governed by very different laws and rules, they report to and are accountable to different entities, and they have different responsibilities, powers and jurisdictions.

And since you haven't read the full report, you have no idea what Mueller explained or didn't explain regarding his declination.

PLEASE do some research before trying to lecture me about how this works!

[SunSeeker]

27. I have Vol. I & II of the redacted report, and have read carefully Mueller's reasoning.

Have you?

Mueller made plenty of statements about Trump in that report, so he clearly was not following that "don't talk about the unindicted" policy anyway. That is not why Mueller says he did not state whether Trump committed obstruction. 

Mueller says explicitly in the report why he didn't answer the question. Did you read the report? It's right on page 2 of Volume 2. He didn't answer the question because, in light of the DOJ policy of not indicting sitting Presidents, he thought it would be "unfair" to Trump to say he committed crimes, but then not bring charges, because it would not provide Trump an "adversarial opportunity for public name clearing before an impartial adjudicator." 

It is ludicrous to claim Trump needs a tribunal to have an "opportunity" to defend his name. Trump has the biggest bully pulpit in the world. He has plenty of opportunity to clear his name, and he has used it. A lot. He has already Tweeted and used the White House Press Office and AG Barr to discount and discredit what is in the Mueller report. A lot more people read Trump's tweets (or read about his tweets) than have read the Mueller Report.

[pnwmom]

16. You're advancing Barr's point of view in this, not Mueller's.

It wasn't Mueller's job to render an opinion, but to explain who he was prosecuting or not prosecuting, and why.

http://time.com/5573289/robert-mueller-trump-obstruction-charges/

Because Mueller’s team can’t indict Trump, it also can’t give him the opportunity for a speedy trial to clear his name, Mueller reasoned. He decided that his team would therefore not make an announcement that Trump had committed a crime — such as obstructing justice — despite the facts it uncover.

“The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice,” he wrote.

SNIP

All that said, Mueller also said that he did not rule out publicly clearing the President of wrongdoing, either. But based on the facts his investigators uncovered, he decided not to do so.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” he wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement.”

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” he added.

[SunSeeker]

19. I am not "advancing Barr's point of view." I am stating the law.

Please don't insult me, pnwmom. I don't deserve it, and you know me better than that.

The decision to prosecute or not IS an opinion; an opinion the Special Counsel regs (28 CFR 600.8(c)) require be explained in a report, unlike the opinion of a regular line prosecutor, who by DOJ policy is just supposed to state he or she declined to prosecute and leave it at that.

To say Trump has no opportunity to clear his name is ludicrous. He has the largest bully pulpit in the world, and uses it daily.

You are correct to suggest Mueller did all but state that Trump committed obstruction. Anyone reading the report can see that Mueller thinks Trump committed obstruction--lots of obstruction. Mueller just didn't have the guts to come right out snd say it. But Mueller did lay out all the instances of potential obstruction he unconcovered. How was that fair if he was so worried about fairness to Trump?

And of course Trump has already pushed back on all those descriptions as being inaccurate. Trump has the biggest megaphone in the world. As expected, all of his supporters are going with Trump's version, not Mueller's. Trump's reputation has not been damaged any more than it already was by Trump's own actions.

Everyone already knows Trump is a liar. Yet Mueller is worried about Trump's reputation. Unfuckingbelievable. I wish he had worried about our democracy nearly as much.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Yes, you are doing exactly what Pwnmom said

That's not an insult. Just a fact.

[SunSeeker]

24. No, I am stating the law. I am not happy that Mueller let Barr make the conclusion.

Nor do I in any way support or "advocate for" Barr. That is an insult. Stating the law is not "advocating for Barr," for fuck's sake.

[StarfishSaver]

36. You're not stating the law at all

You may be stating what you THINK the law is, but you have it completely wrong.

[SunSeeker]

48. I cited the CFR section to you. That is the law. You have cited no laws to me. nt

[StarfishSaver]

51. The regulation you cited doesn't say what you claim it says

The regulation does not require the special council to state his "opinion." Explaining why he chose to decline a prosecution does not require the expression of an "opinion" - unless you believe that that he didn't invite Trump because a DOJ rue prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president bars in doing so is an opinion. And if it is, he indeed stated it he heated me explain that was his reason for not indicted. It wasn't within his jurisdiction to old kind of whether is correct or not or what he would do where he not constrained by the rules governing his investigation.


Mueller also didn't comment on why he didn't recommend that NY State prosecutors should charge Trump with state crimes.. That's because he doesn't have the jurisdiction to launch such a prosecution, just as he lax the authority to indict a sitting president. But under your reasoning, he shirked his duty by not opining on this matter since you seem to think that the unavailability of a particular prosecution or remedy is irrelevant and Mueller should state his opinion on anything and everything related to Trump's wrongdoing.

You can believe whatever you want, but the fact is that he bottom line is Mueller's only responsibility in this regard was to explain why he declined to prosecute. He made clear that he declined to prosecute because he did not have the authority to do so. That's all he was required to do under the regs and all that he was permitted to do under DOJ guidelines. Offering his gratuitous opinion about what he would or wouldn't have done if not for the guidelines is both outside the scope of his responsibility under the regulation and also a blatant violation of the DOJ guidelines.

Barr, of course, says otherwise - he's saying exactly what you're saying. But he's lying.

[SunSeeker]

52. I am citing the CFR correctly.

Mueller did in fact go on for over 400 pages talking about all the things Trump did, why he did not indict him and why Mueller, in his opinion, thought it was "unfair" to make a conclusion that Trump committed a crime (although he certainly laid out the crime for all to see in the report).

So, Mueller clearly did not feel bound by the DOJ guidelines not to discuss why a prosecutor does not indict someone, and not talk about that unidicted co-conspirator. That is because the CFR controls over mere guidelines. Guidelines are not law. The CFR is.
You should know that, counsel. The CFR required him to write a report EXPLAINING his actions or inactions. He did that, for the most part, but stopped short on explicitly coming out and saying Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice. He refused because he thought it would be "unfair" to Trump, not because any DOJ guidelines precluded him from doing so. In other words, he made up his own guidelines.

[StarfishSaver]

54. You're going to think what you're going to think and seem impervious to anything that shakes your as

So, I'll just leave you to yourself and your preconceptions.

Have a nice day.

[sprinkleeninow]

28. Holy God. This is like 'double speak' jive. Curses!

There had better be some unexplained reasoning for how this turned out and has something hidden that would be evidence effective.

We hung our hopes on him...

[uponit7771]

33. No it was not

[Igel]

7. He said what he wanted.

That's the easiest, cleanest way of understanding it. Unless there's a reason (beyond "he's an (R), and you just can't trust *any* of *those* people&quot , face value is often an adequate way of understanding things. He said why he wasn't going to reach a conclusion.

Now, I think he should have reached a conclusion. But I don't think he liked the conclusion he'd have reached. Which was either indict, with a very good chance of losing and creating a huge mess; or not to indict, which would have, to his thinking, allowed what he thought was obstruction to pass by unobstructed. And while partisans would enjoy the huge mess because it would leave chaos and confusion, wrecking anything Trump might want to do, it would also help further Russia's Goal #1 for election meddling, and ultimately rely on partisans' confidence that any disaster that results can easily be rectified, because, well, they're just that awesome. It's the "destroy the village to save it" mentality writ puny.

After that, it's point-by-point through Mueller's report, with only certain points being brought up in any given media source, and even then only certain aspects of them. What the Mueller report elephant is like depends on who you're reading--all tail, tusk, leg, ear, etc.

Notice that Barr also said why he reached the conclusion *he* did. However, many people ignore that because, well, you just can't trust any of *those* people, and substitute what they perceive to be Barr's *real* reason. Worse yet, I keep hearing people put those particular words in Barr's missive.

Now, it's completely possible--and many people have done so--that Barr's reasoning isn't necessary, that the requirements for indictment aren't what he said. If you only hear those voices, then you have to wonder. But others have pointed out that his reasoning isn't all that strange, and that under the relevant statutes those *are* the requirements for an indictment. I haven't compared the statutes and the legal reasoning that's both in the scholarly literature and in case law, so I'm not going to render a verdict.

[UniteFightBack]

9. Because he could not publicly accuse him of a crime where he cannot defend himself in a court of

law...which I find hysterical because that is all this muthfuck has done is defend himself...he doesn't need the court of law...But them are the rules.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Precisely.

Hard to swallow because he is so despicable, but laws are set up to protect the unpopular.

[SunSeeker]

26. What "law" do you contend precluded Mueller from stating whether Trump committed a crime? nt

[StarfishSaver]

37. Please follow Effie's sound advice and go do some research before trying to argue with me

I've attempted to explain this to you and even suggested a source for you to consult, but you insist on continuing to try to argue even though you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[SunSeeker]

47. I see you have nothing, but insults. nt

[H2O Man]

55. There is no law,

just DOJ policy. Had Mr. Mueller violated that policy, Barr could have hid the report from Congress and the public.

[SunSeeker]

59. There is no DOJ policy precluding a Special Counsel from stating his conclusions.

Barr WANTED Mueller to state his conclusions. By not stating a conclusion on obstruction, he opened the door for Barr to do it for him.

If Mueller had stated Trump committed obstruction, sure Barr would try to hide it, but he wouldn't be able to say Mueller made no conclusion that Trump obstructed justice, like Barr was able to do with the report as written.

[H2O Man]

60. Silly.

[SunSeeker]

62. Please stop with the insults. They add nothing to the conversation. nt

[H2O Man]

64. Okay.

I suppose a lack of comprehension eliminates the possibility of a serious conversation. I can't be sure if you are serious or not, but it is really, really simple. Had Mr. Mueller wrote that he concluded that Trump is guilty of a crime he cannot be charged with while in office, Barr would have had justification to hide the report. It would have violated DOJ policy. If you honestly think otherwise, you need to take time to learn the vast difference between what you think should have happened, and what did happen.

[SunSeeker]

66. I showed you misstated what is in the Mueller report.

And all you can do is insult me as having a "lack of comprehension."

There is no DOJ policy barring Mueller from stating Trump committed a crime, only that Mueller could not prosecute Trump while president.

[H2O Man]

70. Nope.

There is a policy regarding charging a president, and another policy against publicly saying someone (anyone) has committed a crime that they are not being charged with (unless they are cooperating in an investigation). You may note, for example, that the SDNY's indictment of Michael Cohen refers to "Individual 1," rather than giving his name.

If a person goes into McDonald's and orders a lobster, then complains they didn't get one -- no rule against lobster, don't you know -- then they really don't have a clue what McDonald's serves. Do they?

I wish that Mr. Mueller had driven a Harley Davidson up to the White House, wearing a black leather jacket, mirrored sun glasses, and no helmet, and yanked Trump out in handcuffs. But I know that isn't a possibility ....any more than getting lobster at McDonald's. Reality isn't always what we want, of course, but it is exactly what it is.

[SunSeeker]

71. Mueller does not say he is precluded from stating Trump committed a crime.

You mistated what was in the 4th paragraph of the Vol. II intro. Mueller talks about the policy against charging a president in that paragraph, NOT about a "policy against publicly saying someone (anyone) has committed a crime that they are not being charged with (unless they are cooperating in an investigation)."

Mueller said he chose not to conclude whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction out of "fairness" to Trump, not because he was barred from doing so by any DOJ policy. See Vol. II, page 2.

[H2O Man]

73. You've answered

my question about if you are serious. Thank you!

[StarfishSaver]

68. When someone doesn't understand the difference between an explanation and an opinion

any further discussion is probably a waste of time.

[H2O Man]

72. An opinion

is, by definition, rooted in an understanding of an issue. Hence, in a court of law, only an "expert witness" can give their opinion. Those who have not mastered a topic do not actually have an opinion, they have a bias. Big difference.

I understand why people wanted more from Mr. Mueller's investigation. But those who understand the DOJ and the legal system grasp both the "how" and "why" of the current status.

And I agree that it generally isn't worth the effort to continue such conversations ....fot as we know from Tao Te Ching, "Knowing ignorance is strength; ignoring knowledge is sickness." But there are times when it may be worthwhile to correct misinformation on a public forum!

[SunSeeker]

25. There are no rules preventing Mueller from concluding that Trump committed a crime.

Mueller never said in his report there were any rules precluding him from opining on whether Trump broke the law. Instead, he refused because he though it would be "unfair" to Trump.

[H2O Man]

56. Incorrect.

He noted early in the report that because of DOJ policy, he approached the investigation in the manner he did.

[SunSeeker]

57. Please cite the Volume (I or II) and page number you are referring to. nt

[H2O Man]

58. Although I think

it would be better if you actually read the report -- because if you had, you wouldn't ask this question -- I will kindly provide the answer. For but one time Mr. Mueller notes this, buy the book and look on page 263 (it's volume two) in the introduction's 4th paragraph.

[SunSeeker]

61. There is no page 263 in Volume II. If you are referring to page 1, Vol. II, it does not say that.

I did read what you are referring to. I have both volumes. The 4th paragraph of the Intro in Vol. II talks about the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting President. It does not say Mueller is precluded by any DOJ policy from stating whether Trump committed a crime.

Please stop with the insults.

[H2O Man]

63. Too funny.

[GeorgeGist]

12. Because Bill Barr edited his report before submission.

[Kid Berwyn]

14. This.

Mueller was flipping the flippers one level at a time to successfully build a RICO type case.

When CIA Legal Beagel Bill Barr said “That’s enough,” the report was no where near done.

[uponit7771]

34. +1,

[DeminPennswoods]

15. He did state that in so many words

right in the summaries his team prepared.

[Amyishere]

30. I don't understand why more people don't get that. The investigation was obviously shut down.

We have Mueller's letters of protest that we know of, one of which was made public. We know he also called, and the day Barr was confirmed, they had a conversation, one that Barr is extremlely cagey and careful in his word usage about. I think he told Mueller "the plan". Wrap it up and write it out the way that emphasizes the OLC opinion. We still don't know the parts of the report that have been left out.

It's been over a month, though, and it's time for Mueller himself to speak up.

[DeminPennswoods]

39. Don't believe the investigation was shut down

If so, Mueller was obligated to report that to Congress under the SCO regulation and he didn't.

I suspect that when Manafort reneged on his plea deal and Trump answering only limited questions with responses written by his lawyers, that was the end of SCO's ability to go further.

Mueller did state that some people took their 5th amendment right and some used encrypted email and/or deleted email. And, that also hindered the investigation.

[StarfishSaver]

40. Mueller isn't obligated to report anything to Congress under any regulation

His only legal obligation was to submit a report to the Attorney General - and that report is confidential unless the AG shares it. Not only doesn't he have the obligation to report directly to Congress, it would have violated the law for him to have done so.

[DeminPennswoods]

44. That is not true

Neil Katyal, who wrote the regulation, has explained many times on his cable appearances that the special counsel must report to Congress instances of asking for something (subpoena, etc) and it being denied by the AG.

It is true the special counsel report goes to the AG, but attempts to interfere or otherwise obstruct the special counsel's investigation must be reported to Congress.

[StarfishSaver]

45. I think you may have misunderstood Katyal or misread the regulation

The regulation doesn't require the Special Counsel to report such instances directly to Congress. It says that the Attorney General must give great weight to any "investigative or prosecutorial step" requested by the Special Counsel and if the AG decides such step shouldn't be pursued, the AG (not the Special Counsel) must notify Congress.

Now, certainly, Congress is entitled to ask Mueller directly if any request was denied and he is not prohibited by the regulation or, as far as I know, any other legal restriction, from responding honestly. But there is no requirement that the Special Counsel report directly to Congress and doing so would have been a violation of the regulations which require him to report confidentially to the Attorney General.

Here's the relevant provision:

600.7(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in §600.9(a)(3).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ecfr.io/Title-28/pt28.2.600%3famp

[DeminPennswoods]

65. Argue with Katyal, not me

nt

[StarfishSaver]

67. I don't need to argue with him. He and I are saying the same thing.

[lame54]

23. Because...

Accusing someone who can't have his day in court to defend himself - he felt was wrong

[democratisphere]

31. Many have said that he could indict a sitting President including the

guy that wrote the rules.


http://time.com/5574520/mueller-report-trump-indictment-obstruction-justice/

[StarfishSaver]

41. What many people say is irrelevant in this instance

Mueller reports to the AG and DOJ and he is required to follow their interpretation of this provision, regardless that some other people may interpret it differently

[watoos]

32. Mueller did say that, in a negative way,

he said if he would have found Trump not guilty he would have said it.

[kentuck]

35. If he could not indict, how could he give a verdict of guilty or innocent?

Would that have prejudiced any trial in the future?

I think that is the rationale he used, with the rules that he was following?

I think the argument is that he should not have followed the rules.

[SunSeeker]

69. Mueller stating his opinion that Trump committed a crime would not have precluded future prosecution

Mueller never said he was not coming to a conclusing because it might prejudice a future trial. Where did you read that in the report? Please give Volume and page number.

The argument is NOT that Mueller "should not have followed the rules." On the contrary, I am arguing his report should have stated whether he found any crimes and explained why, as required required by 28 CFR 600.8(c).

[sarabelle]

38. Comey had no problem with smearing Hillary after no indictment. Mueller could have done the same.

Nothing much would have happened to him as a white, male, Republican. And, Mueller's statements would have been based on a cache of evidence, not opinion and supposition like Comey. I lost a great deal of reputation-based respect for Mueller. He is a huge disappointment who has largely failed the nation in my opinion. DOJ guidance, policy, and tradition are broken every day and especially by this administration.

[StarfishSaver]

42. Comey blatantly violated DOJ guidelines.

Mueller followed them, as he should have.

We can't complain about Trump and his people violating laws, rules and practices, demand they be held accountable - and then violate those same laws, rules and practices in order to hold them accountable for their violations.

[lunatica]

50. So if Mueller went around "smearing" Trump

you would respect him again?

That’s what you just said.

[jalan48]

46. Mueller should be able to clear things up when he testifies. Will he testify and will he clear

things up? We'll find out then where he really stands.

[lunatica]

49. Because he's a professional who's job was to investigate

Not to conclude. And Barr made him stop the investigation, therefore there were obviousl things left un-investigated.

Yet he went far enough to say he could NOT say if Trump was innocent. I’d say that’s a giant red flag.

But I’m sure no answer to your question will register. They never do.

[H2O Man]

53. Simple.

If he had done so, it would violate DOJ policy, and his report would never have seen the light of day.