Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[anvi]

Well, I am a little surprised by the result.  I have a few lingering questions about it, like why Mueller, if he thought the obstruction case was ambiguous and had at least some incriminating evidence, did not attempt to interview Trump to at least probe about intent, especially when he admitted at least once in a television interview that he dismissed Comey because of the ongoing Russia investigation.  I'm also puzzled about why Trump's public request at a summer, '16 press conference for Russia to produce Clinton emails doesn't seem to weigh at all in considerations of coordination.  That such statements as were made in the interview and press conference happened "in public view" does not seem to me to render them irrelevant, as Barr's letter appears to suggest.  I also think as much of the report that does not breech national security concerns as possible should be release to the public.  Still, Mueller ran a thoroughly professional investigation and produced a large number of important and just convictions, so I trust his legal judgement. 

Politically, this leaves the Democrats where they have been all along. For 2020, they have to produce a candidate that will draw as many of their supporters to the polls as possible, and they need that candidate to be more appealing to the public than Trump.  So far, incredibly and sadly, I don't think the prospects look promising at all on this front.

[anvi]

Well, I am a little surprised by the result.  I have a few lingering questions about it, like why Mueller, if he thought the obstruction case was ambiguous and had at least some incriminating evidence, did not attempt to interview Trump to at least probe about intent, especially when he admitted at least once in a television interview that he dismissed Comey because of the ongoing Russia investigation.

It could be a constitutional question that made him hesitate. What we read was the result of Mueller punting the decision to Barr/Rosenstein, and the decision was predictable.

I'm no lawyer, so that is of course possible.  But on the face of it, while there is a lingering Constitutional ambiguity regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted, I know of no legal ambiguity in calling a president in for questioning under oath in a federal investigation of activities of his own campaign.  If there is no such legal ambiguity, the decision not to interview Trump was Mueller's call, and it would be nice to know what his basis was for making it.  I completely agree that punting the decision to pursue an obstruction case to Barr left the result predictable.