- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,878
- Reaction score
- 4,064
He stated DoJ policy is not to indict a President and provided the evidence so Congress can determine if impeachment is warranted.
He said this:
The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official.
Which means he could produce no evidence of treason or criminal conspiracy with Russians of any kind despite an intense two year investigation. Pretty self-explanatory. He then followed it up with this:
But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.
Which is garbage to appease Democrats and open the door for them to form their own partisan interpretation. Either you have evidence of a crime or you do not. Mueller did not, and no one is in a better position to determine that than a special investigator with free reign.
Last edited: