Thread by @AriMelber

Mueller’s argument is “he can’t report on what his facts mean because the president has immunity from prosecution. But that doesn’t follow.

If you believe Trump committed a crime, even if you can’t indict him now, why not say so?”

- @maureendowd⁩

nytimes.com/2019/06/01/opi…

...This is a key and straightforward point.

The legal principle preventing a POTUS *from indictment* simply prevents a POTUS from indictment — not factual findings and their implications.

Jaworski naming Nixon an (unindicted) coconspirator is the precedent for this.

Nixon was named a coconspirator while in office, before people knew what came next.

(Would he finish his term? Face impeachment? Resign? They didn’t know.)

It was initially secret but became public while Nixon was battling the push for impeachment.

So while *Mueller* may have concluded it isn’t fair to declare a President committed a crime — and that may be his good faith view of the issue — it is not true that legal precedent prevents such a determination, confidentially or publicly.

And the DOJ rules state the special counsel shall write a confidential report about who was and wasn’t charged. That is the place for explaining this.

i.e. There was evidence on these # people, and of them, these were charged, and these weren’t, here’s why.

We’ve explained and reported this all out before — not saying much new here per se, just reiterating this stuff because Dowd puts the core question so clearly.

And this week’s legal news was not exactly... a model of clarity.