Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers
Has nothing to do with the DOJ's position on not indicting a sitting president, nah no nah nothing.
\
|
Not really. If the special counsel cannot indict a sitting president, then there would be no reason to appoint one. And if there were unequivocal evidence to indict or prosecute, that could be stated so in the report as it was stated in vol. 1 regarding conspiracy where it was stated that there was insufficient evidence. The examples of possible obstruction in vol. 2 were not unequivocal, but could mean other than obstruction, as, I believe, Mueller stated. Therefor they could not be grounds for indictment.
If the Counsel can state insufficient, he can state sufficient, even if the DOJ policy denies him the ability to indict. Otherwise, what's the point of investigating obstruction. He can conclude, that is the point of a special counsel investigation. Leaving it up in the air is the same as saying it wasn't the responsibility of the special counsel to begin with. And throwing in the "cannot exonerate" bit is not only inconclusive, it is irresponsible, it is an example of creating an air of guilt without having to actually demonstrate guilt--which can, rightly, be perceived as a political "conclusion" rather than a legal one. Or, as another incidence of "deep state" influence or interference on government policy and or on public perception.