Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Is the purpose of a prosecutorial investigation to determine if there is sufficient evidence to convict, or to exonerate? That's a rhetorical question. If there is not sufficient evidence to convict, then innocence is presumed. "Presumed" is the operative word, not proved.
So, given that evidence must be sufficient to prosecute, would, as you said "Because of OLC rulings they could not indict the sitting president for the crimes they would normally have," would then by that reasoning Mueller also not have charged Trump with consipiracy even if the evidence was sufficient to prove he was guilty?
If Mueller could have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with conspiracy, why could he not also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to charge Trump with obstruction?
|
He gathered the evidence for Congress to make a decision if they chose to do so or failing that so a prosecutor could indict trump when he is out of office.
He lays it out clearly in his report.
I expect he will explain it clearly to Congress and the American people if trump and his attorney cannot find a way to prevent him from testifying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hybrid Mode
