(THREAD) I see that Trumpsters still don’t understand how the OLC memo saying presidents cannot be indicted was relevant to the Mueller Report, or they fake that they don’t understand. I think the report was clear about this for part 2.
1/ Paraphrasing, the explanation in the Mueller Report comes down to:
“If we determine there clearly was no crime we will say so. If there was a crime, we will not say that, because the OLC memo means that we will not determine there was a crime, regardless of evidence.”
“If we determine there clearly was no crime we will say so. If there was a crime, we will not say that, because the OLC memo means that we will not determine there was a crime, regardless of evidence.”
2/ That does not contradict Mueller explaining that he was not saying that, but for the OLC memo, they would say Trump committed a crime. The OLC memo created a barrier, such that they would not say Trump committed a crime, even if the evidence was overwhelming.
3/ Page 212/448 of the Mueller Report starts the explanation for how important the OLC memo was, starting about halfway down, with the paragraph that starts with “First”: 
4/ Page 213/248 continues the explanation for why, even if the evidence showed that Trump committed a crime, they would not say that:
5/ When people ask Mueller whether he would have charged Trump if not for the barrier (the OLC memo), an answer that fits the report is:
“The barrier exists, therefore we will not say what would happen without the barrier. If the barrier goes away, we can discuss it then.”
“The barrier exists, therefore we will not say what would happen without the barrier. If the barrier goes away, we can discuss it then.”
6/ I see this as similar to asking a judge what they would say about the guilt of a defendant if it wasn’t the jury’s job to decide. The barrier (it being the jury’s job) exists, therefore the judge should not say what they would do without the barrier.
7/ A judge who says that they will not tell you whether the defendant is guilty while the jury is deliberating is not saying that if it wasn’t the jury’s job they would proclaim the defendant guilty. They are saying there is a barrier to them making a proclamation, like Mueller.
8/ As page 212 explains, because of the OLC memo, the Mueller team decided not to make a traditional prosecution or declination decision.
9/ Ratcliffe and other Trumpsters want Trump to be above the law, so what they demand is both the protection of the OLC memo, and for everything else to be as if that protection doesn’t exist. It is a trick to make consequences for crimes essentially impossible.
10/ What Ratcliffe wanted was to make it so that because of the OLC memo the Mueller team could only say that they declined to prosecute, then not provide any of the evidence, or say they couldn’t clear Trump, no matter how overwhelming the evidence.
11/ So Ratcliffe points to documents that don’t say what to do in the case of the OLC memo, and complains that the documents don’t say the Mueller team should do what they did. Of course the documents don’t.
12/ From what I have seen, the OLC memo was written without looking at the consequences and documenting the alternatives to indicting a president, if evidence of crimes is found by an executive branch investigation.
13/ The OLC memo is like looking at a stack of Justice Department rules and guidelines and saying, “Those don’t all apply to the President.” Then Ratcliffe says, “You have to use these rules and guidelines, but only some of them. He needs to be above the law and consequences.”
14/ As I mentioned above, there was a barrier so that Mueller would not determine, or say, whether he would have indicted Trump. We can’t know with 100% certainty what Mueller would have done if he could have indicted Trump (if not for the OLC memo).
15/ I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what Mueller probably would have done if not for the OLC memo though.
For one thing, Mueller let it slip once that he would have indicted Trump if he could have, then had to go to the wording in the report.
For one thing, Mueller let it slip once that he would have indicted Trump if he could have, then had to go to the wording in the report.
16/ Even before Mueller let it slip (or misspoke) that he would have indicted, we knew some things:
🔹For part 1 Mueller sad there wasn’t enough to indict.
🔹For part 2 Mueller said there was too much to clear Trump. He didn’t say there wasn’t enough to indict.
🔹For part 1 Mueller sad there wasn’t enough to indict.
🔹For part 2 Mueller said there was too much to clear Trump. He didn’t say there wasn’t enough to indict.
17/ If there wasn’t enough to indict for part 2, why wouldn’t Mueller just say that, like he did for part 1? The OLC memo wouldn’t even come into the matter if there wasn’t enough evidence to indict. It would be irrelevant.
18/ The only valid reason to even bring up the OLC memo as affecting the conclusion of part 2 would be if Mueller wanted to indict. The OLC memo wasn’t a barrier to saying there wasn’t enough evidence to indict. It only becomes a barrier if they wanted to indict.
19/ Of course, “sad” in 16/ should have been “said”.
Anyway, I realize it isn’t 100%, but making the conclusion of part 2 different than part 1, and explaining how the OLC memo came into play, is a pretty strong indicator that without the memo the recommendation is to indict.
Anyway, I realize it isn’t 100%, but making the conclusion of part 2 different than part 1, and explaining how the OLC memo came into play, is a pretty strong indicator that without the memo the recommendation is to indict.
