Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Justice Department policy does not prevent making a determination re the President's conduct. Making a determination and indicting are not the same thing. If there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was criminal intent in Trump's actions (criminal intent would be necessary in a case where there is no underlying crime), then Mueller could have made that determination. It would be a dereliction of his duty not to make the determination if he believed it and the evidence showed it, but it would be foolish, or obviously biased, to determine he committed a crime if criminal intent could not be established. There is no doubt that Mueller would know that. That all may well be why he refused to make the determination as to whether the President committed a crime, mainly being that criminal intent would be too difficult to establish.
And the notion that he didn't make the determination on the basis of fairness is deceptive on its face. If fairness were the issue, then simply stating that there was not sufficient evidence to make that determination. Period. Case closed. The way Mueller did it was not, in any way, "fair." As Scott said, it was "crazy contortioneering."
|
You should be glad that the Independent Counsel Act expired or the investigation might have been as wide ranging and gone on as long as Starr's of the Clintons. Probably would have involved Stormy, Trump's finances and who knows what else.
But as far as your claim that the report failed to make a determination that Trump and his team acted improperly at best you are incorrect.
Here is a list for you:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-...d-said-or-knew
I think your argument is with the rules the Special Counsel operates under.
I assume that Rosenstein as the representative of the AG knew thru the required reporting about Mueller's teams reading of the regulations far prior to the issuance of the report.
You could ask your Representative to put forth that question, or perhaps it is one of the ones Mueller took. After the hearings, committee chairpersons give their colleagues a deadline for submitting additional questions based on the witness’s testimony and Mueller might be asked to provide a more substantive response.
The report Mueller prepared per the regulations was a confidential report and he presented it to the AG per the regulations. It was the AG's choice to release it in whole or part, if it was in the public interest. I believe Congress could also release it.
This is the interesting testimony to Congress on Wednesday, September 15, 1999 after the new regulations were issued by the Attorney General on June 30 to replace procedures which expired with the sunset that day of the Independent Counsel Act.
You can read the testimony here
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonie...l-regulations/
I expect after this the Special Counsel regulations may yet again be revised or a new law enacted.