[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You didn't answer my question. The Special Counsel can bring criminal charges. He can conclude if the evidence supports an indictment for criminal activity. If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence showed that Trump conspired with Russia, why could he not conclude that Trump obstructed justice? Would the OLC have prevented him from bringing charges against Trump for conspiracy? If not, then it would not in the case of obstruction. Whether he can indict or not, he can conclude, whether the evidence supports an indictment. He made a conclusion re conspiracy. He could, and should, have done so re obstruction.

A conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient for indictment does not mean the defendant is without a doubt innocent. It means that the defendant, for purposes of trial and conviction, is presumed innocent, and no charges will be brought.

The Special Counsel gathers evidence fur the justice department, not for Congress. It is not for the Special Counsel to make a case for Congress. Congress is politicized, so targeting evidence toward Congress would be politicizing it.

He should have concluded whether or not the evidence was sufficient for indictment. That was his job and the reason for his appointment. If the evidence is not sufficient or it is, he should have expressly said so. In the event that he didn't make that conclusion, it was then left to the AG to do so. And he did. As a matter of law, then, Trump is presumed innocent. What Congress does is another matter. Using Mueller's report as evidence would be a political exercise. How that turns out will be seen. If Congress impeaches, but the Senate does not convict, then we will have a poitical decision on the matter.

The premise for your question is faulty
Mueller clearly states his reasons in the report
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device