Volume II pages 1 and 2

transporter

Well-Known Member
This will continue the destruction of comrade GURPS' propaganda, William Barr's 4 page "summary" and Donald Trump's claims of "No Obstruction":

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.2
For those who don't understand English: the above clearly states Mueller's rationale for not seeking an indictment of the President for obstruction. It is NOT because he found no evidence. It is NOT because Trump is innocent. It is because of the OLC opinion on prosecuting a sitting President. Read it again if you don't understand.

while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
Comrade GURPS, the ignorati, William Barr, Donald Trump and the right wing echo chamber claim "no evidence" of and "total exoneration" on obstruction.

If that were true:

1. Volume II would be now more than a few paragraphs and end with wording similar to the effect of " We find no evidence of obstruction on the part of Donald J. Trump. It doesn't say that.

2. Instead Volume II is a 182 page document created, according to Item 2, that was created "to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5

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. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
So in fairness to a President who treats no one else fairly and in order not to imperil the President's ability to govern, despite the fact that Donald Trump cannot govern, Mueller opts not to "pass judgement" on whether or not the President committed crimes.

Given the character of Donald Trump, this is a crock....but given the reality in Item 1 of the OLC opinion and for the betterment of the country it is probably the proper course of action.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
And then there is the nuclear paragraph....

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. 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.
The highlighted portion is the whole ball of wax.

The Special Counsel, bound by the confines of the OLC opinion not to indict but also having the authority to fully investigate the matter of obstruction, does not/will not/cannot conclude that the President obstructed justice.

Every post by GURPS or spitbubble that claims the President was cleared or totally exonerated of obstruction is factually incorrect (otherwise known as a lie)

Every comment, tweet or pronouncement from the White House, AG Barr, any Republican, Fox "News", Breitbart, dailywire or any other propagandist source that claims the President was cleared or totally exonerated of obstruction is factually incorrect (otherwise known as a lie).
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It was made clear that if there were prosecutable crimes, the president could and would be prosecuted post presidency.

What prosecution did the report recommend against the president, his family, or members of his campaign for actions during the campaign or after?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
For those who don't understand English: the above clearly states Mueller's rationale for not seeking an indictment of the President for obstruction. It is NOT because he found no evidence. It is NOT because Trump is innocent. It is because of the OLC opinion on prosecuting a sitting President. Read it again if you don't understand.
And for those (you) who don't understand what a 'finding' is... Mueller still could have reported that he found that Trump obstructed justice, yet he decided not to. He could recommended indictment, but he didn't. If Mueller knew, for certain, that Trump obstructed justice, he is obligated to report that in his findings. He didn't. Game over!
 
Top