To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1126741 ) 3/25/2019 1:30:23 PM From: Bill 2 RecommendationsRecommended By
Read Replies (2) | Respond to Mueller, Barr, Rosenstein and the rest of the DOJ...consulting with Department of Justice officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel ; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference, and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct , had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of- justice offense."
