Thread by @JillWineBanks

1. WHAT MUELLER MEANT OR SHOULD HAVE SAID:

FOLLOW THIS THREAD

2. We did not exonerate President Trump. If our investigation supported exoneration, we would have said so. To the contrary, we found and set forth in our report more than ten actions by Trump that could constitute criminal obstruction of justice. 2.

3. Despite that evidence, we were prevented from making a determination of the president’s guilt because we were bound by the Justice Department policy that “a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office….

4. Charging the president with a crime was … not an option we could consider.” But the Constitution provides impeachment as an alternative to criminally charging the president for wrongdoing, a process recognized by that same DOJ policy. As long as the DOJ policy is in effect,

5. impeachment is the only way to hold a sitting president accountable. Impeachment is a solemn responsibility solely in the hands of Congress. For that reason, I have summarized the evidence my office gathered during our tenure

6. The evidence is presented in the 2 volumes of my final report for Congress’ use for impeachment (or for use by a federal prosecutor after the president is out of office). In addition to my report, Congress and future prosecutors should have access to the unredacted report &...

7. ...all the underlying materials. In that connection, I note that grand jury testimony and documents are available to Congress through two exceptions to Rule 6e grand jury secrecy:

8. Secrecy exceptions: the one used by the Watergate Special Prosecutor that allows release for judicial proceedings and actions preliminary to judicial proceedings and a second exception when, as here, there is evidence of a “foreign hostile act” that Congress must deal with.

9. That's what I wish Mueller had said. It is what I believe he meant, just put in simple, declarative, straight-forward sentences.