[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What Mueller wrote should indicate to you, that the purpose of the investigation is to make a conclusion. In order to make a conclusion, there must be substantial unequivocal evidence. If there is not such evidence, there is, at least in law, a presumption of innocence. If there is not sufficient evidence to indict, the matter is over for the counsel. There is no need for any comment on exoneration. That merely muddies the investigation and its purpose.

When there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for conspiracy, that was not "exoneration". It was the CONCLUSION that Trump was not indictable. He might, in reality, have committed the crime, but if that can't be proven, the matter is over. By law, Trump is presumed innocent. But if you want to feel, or think, or have the opinion, that he is guilty, that's your prerogative.

As for obstruction, the duty and process for Mueller is the same. He could not find unequivocal evidence that Trump could be indicted for obstruction. It wasn't his duty to "exonerate," it was his job to CONCLUDE if Trump was indictable. He couldn't.

Has nothing to do with the DOJ's position on not indicting a sitting president, nah no nah nothing.
\