Where exactly in the Constitution does it say you cannot indict a sitting president Mr Mueller?
Just to emphasize the point, Trump exited the White House and shot a passing tourist point blank on Pennsylvania Avenue.
If, as every indicator suggests, this all comes down to our Senate acting like they represent The People, we are in a world of hurt.
That statement sounded a lot like “we found evidence that justified an indictment but couldn’t bring one.” This frankly destroys Trump’s “exoneration” talk.
But, but, but…wasn’t Fat Donnie fully exonerated?
I was puzzled by that too. Is he suggesting that the DOJ policy correctly interprets what the Constitution allows or prohibits in this situation? Is this even what the policy purports to do?
Or is he saying that, because the policy–as policy–prohibits prosecution, it would be unconstitutional to charge and not then allow the defendant to answer the charge–either because he has a right to clear his name, or because the evidence will grow stale . . . .?
“If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not say that the President had committed a crime because we are not allowed to.”
You can quibble with Mueller’s reasoning about the unconstitutionality of charging a sitting President with a crime. And you can criticize him for being overly punctilious. But he just said in the plainest English he is willing to allow himself that he thinks the President committed a crime. Yes, he did.
And for that, Bob, thanks.
I’m not sure that the language he used said that charging a President would be “unconstitutional.” The pronoun reference of “that is unconstitutional” seems unclear to me. It would have been easy to say “such a charge would be unconstitutional.”
Does the Constitution actually speak on this?
Thats what I remember from when the Report came out. Lawfare discussed this, IIRC.
Yep. That’s exactly what I was thinking.
Marcy speaks.
Ultimately, Mueller has revealed himself to be a fascist authoritarian at heart. He is upset that Trump is not the benevolent dictator he pines for, yet it is still a dictator he desires.
That’s what it means to absurdly interpret the constitution as stating the president is above the law, unable to be prosecuted. Presidents are not above the law. Kings and dictators are. This is the problem with trusting Republican authoritarians.
“No confidence. No exoneration” isn’t quite as snappy as Trump would like it.
“If the President does it, it’s not a crime.” – Richard M. Nixon.
Get a grip.
Neither lengthy not substantial. He needs to be subpoena-ed
I thought it was merely Justice Dept policy that you can’t indict a sitting president, and no more.
It was neither lengthy nor substantial. Except…
It calls bullshit on the president’s claim of “total exoneration”. Mueller’s statement also strongly implies that the Trump/Barr probe of the investigation is total bullshit. The real political “witch hunt”.
Mueller: “If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
“You’re gonna need a bigger orange jumpsuit.”
(h/t Chief Brody)