Did you understand Mueller to be saying that one could charge a sitting president after he leaves office or more specifically that Mueller determined there were sufficient grounds to charge Trump for obstruction?
Honestly I'm assuming he slipped up and said the latter. I was watching it live and rewinded it to make sure I was correct but I don't think it was his intent to say that, he meant the former.
Reading that bit of the transcript, there's two ways to understand the exchange. One, is that Rep. Buck is asking do you have a strong enough case to actually bring obstruction charges after Trump leaves office, and Mueller says he does. Or, two, that Rep. Buck is asking if it is theoretically possible to bring obstruction charges once a presidential immunity expires, and Mueller is saying he could in theory if there was a case to be brought. I don't think they clarified what they were really talking about. I think I know the answer -- that Mueller is responding here to mean charges could theoretically be brought. He wouldn't say that the case merits bringing charges necessarily because he doesn't want to be caught saying that out loud. But, he totally does think the charges can and should be brought in due time. But that's just me reading in what I want to hear.
I'm quoting mueller. 'We made no determination on if trump committed a crime'. This is officially stated position in the report. How could he have no opinion on if trump committed a crime and at the same time think he should be charged? Charged with what? A crime he doesn't know if trump committed?
It was so strange. I thought the morning would be worse for the Republicans and better for the Democrats. But the Trump came off much worse in the afternoon's hearing which had to do with Russia and Trump's relationship with Russia.
I yield my time to the ranking member... Nunes: Are aliens commonly referred to as the 'Greys' responsible for writing and leaking the Steele Dossier?
Mueller made it clear that he did not intend to support Lieu’s implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion. That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it. What Mueller meant was that the OLC opinion kept him from even deciding if an indictment would be warranted in the first place.
He spelled it out in his report. He did not believe it was his job to offer an opinion on whether Trump committed a crime or not. He based that on the position of the AG that a sitting President cannot he charged with a crime while in office. Further he was instructed by the AG to not deviate from his report. Therefore his opinions are irrelevant. It is up to congress to determine if he has committed impeachable crimes while Trump is in office. Once he is out of office the proper authorities to determine if they want to charge him with crimes. Trump did all of this to himself. Robert Mueller was never out “to get” the President. He is a conservative person that strongly believes in authority and strict rules of procedure. Robert Mueller did not deviate from the state department rules and his OPINIONS on the subject are beyond the orders. He received. All he will discuss are facts contained in his report. Trump should be very grateful, because someone else with less obedience or viewed their role to be less restricted, could have offered a number of opinions that are not flattering of President Trump.
Except I don’t see anyone freaking out.... Muller made it very clear a number of times that he would only repeat the facts in his report.
