Search Posts

Good morning director if you'll let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning You said in volume one on the issue of conspiracy the special counsel Determined that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign Conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities and then in volume two For reasons that you explained the special counsel did not make a determination On whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president. Is that fair? Yes, sir All right now in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision The report on the bottom of page two of volume two reads as follows The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from Conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime It also does not exonerate him the special counsel's job. Nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence Or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It's not in any of the documents It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions It's not in the Justice Manual and it's not in the principles of federal prosecution Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully respectfully director It was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it including sitting presidents and because there is a presumption of innocence prosecutors never ever Need to conclusively determine it now director the special counsel applied This inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies and you used it to write a report and the very first line of Your report the very first line of your report says and you as you read this morning It authorizes a special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report Explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel. That's the very first word of your report, right? That's correct Here's the problem director. The special counsel didn't do that on Volume 2 with respect to potential of obstruction of justice the special counsel made neither a prosecution Decision or a declination decision. You made no decision You told us this morning and in your report that you made no determination. So respectfully director You didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says Write a confidential report about decisions reached nowhere in here Does it say write a report about decisions that weren't reached you wrote 180 pages? 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided and respectfully Respectfully by doing that you managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged so Americans need to know this as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle as they do dramatic readings from This report that volume two of this report was not authorized Under the law to be written It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department and it was written in violation of every DOJ principle About extra prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law He's not but he damn sure shouldn't be below the law

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.