Quote:
Originally Posted by NhlNut
The obvious option is that Mueller didn't consider it his job to make conclusions. The Constitution specifies the method for Presidential oversight. The House and Impeachment.
Barr provided a legal opinion. I'm not confident it's impartial. And once again, Mueller likely didn't make any conclusion about 'criminality'. He left that to the Constitutionally empowered.
That could very well be true about the President, but would absolutely not be true of any of his aides. Mueller would certainly make conclusions about the criminality of the acts of all of Trump's aides -- he would do that in the form of indictments. And the fact that he has not and will not make any indictments of Trump's aides regarding conspiracy with Russians to commit election crimes means his investigation didn't support bringing those sorts of charges against Trump's aides.
And how likely is it that there wouldn't be sufficient evidence of Trump aides doing the Russian election crimes but there is substantial evidence that Trump supported the election crimes all by himself without implicating any of his aides. It doesn't seem particularly likely.
Quote:
It's inconceivable that a team that didn't leak at all for 2 years would continue it's silence? Especially if the team considered the judicial process ongoing? I would be shocked if Mueller comments at all before being subpoenaed by the HJC
The Mueller team was silent for two years, with one notable exception. That exception was when a sensational story broke that claimed the Mueller investigation had evidence that Trump suborned perjury. Mueller quickly and publicly corrected that error. If Barr was similarly misrepresenting the Mueller's findings then I would be shocked if Mueller didn't speak out publicly to correct Barr's misrepresentation.