Thread by @sethjlevy

1/ I’m going to try this one more time.

When Mueller told Barr that he wasn’t saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have charged Trump, that didn’t mean he wouldn’t have charged him.

2/ What Mueller was say was that, in the presence of evidence, it was unfair to charge Trump because there was no venue availableto Trump to defend himself.

3/ People argue that this was Mueller encouraging impeachment. It isn’t Mueller’s fault that the OLC opinion specifically indicates that impeachment is the constitutional venue to deal with the crimes of a President.

4/ People also argue that Mueller should have said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. A clear declination. But they can’t know if this would have been Mueller’s conclusion.

5/ Ultimately what Mueller is saying is the the body that could provide Trump the venue to defend himself is the body that should consider whether to charge based on the evidence. The house now has that evidence. If they decline impeachment then you have your answer.

6/ How would it have been more fair to Trump for Mueller to say that in his opinion Trump should be charged? Given that ultimately the venue is in Congress, this would be an outside influence tilting the scale.

7/ It seems to me the Democrats are unhappy that Mueller declined to decide on the premise that, if he did, he would’ve charged Trump and the Republicans are unhappy because they assume Mueller would conclude insufficient evidence to charge Trump.

8/ In the end this is an issue that should be decided by Congress. By “this” I mean if the DOJ can charge the President. Let the courts deal with the question. The biggest problem is that the OLC is governing such a fundamental constitutional question. /end