Mueller did tell us that had he been able to confidently say that the evidence did not support charges of obstruction against the president, he would have said so. He did not.
Then...........
Left unsaid however, was the evident conclusion — that, in fact, ample evidence of criminal obstruction by the president existed.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Mueller could have said that there was ample and absolute evidence of obstruction, but he would not indict, because of policies that would not allow him to indict a sitting president. A point that many are fixated on. But, if you read the report, there were other reasons stated as well.
The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III lifted part of the cloud over President Trump by concluding his campaign had not conspired with Russians to tilt the 2016 election.
But Mueller said he was unable to clear Trump of attempting to illegally interfere with the government’s Russia probe. Even so, the special counsel stopped short of charging Trump with obstruction of justice. His report offered at least three reasons for doing so.
First, Mueller said Justice Department policy forbids the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Because Mueller was acting as a special prosecutor within the Justice Department, he said he had to follow this policy. This suggests Mueller believed that no matter what the evidence showed, he did not have the authority to charge the president with a crime.
Second, unlike a case in which an official seeks to cover up a crime, “the evidence we obtained did not establish the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” Mueller’s report said
“The Mueller report lays out a vast body of evidence of obstructive conduct by the president,” Bookbinder said. “This was a classic pattern of threats, firings and use of power to undermine an investigation. It is a danger if this is somehow normalized. It’s now up to Congress to take it from here.”
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, disagrees, saying he did not see a clear case of obstruction of justice. He said Mueller portrayed the president as angry about being under investigation.
“In my view, the report reveals more obsession than obstruction,” Turley said. “Trump comes across as someone who is obsessed with the investigation and its impact on his presidency. He was angry that Comey would not say in public that he was not under investigation. Had he fired Mueller, they might have a case. But what you are left with here is that the president issued orders and no one listened.”
I really want Mueller to testify before Congress in an open hearing. Only then, will we get a true account of why he punted on the obstruction charge. Dem's say it was left to Congress to decide and others say, the proof was inconclusive.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
