So Mueller said they have confidence he committed a crime?
It's all there. But unfortunately the audience needs to carefully read or listen, and must think long enough to apply basic logic.
READ: Robert Mueller's full remarks on the special counsel investigation - CNNPolitics
Question: Did the Special Council determine that the President committed a crime?
Answer:
"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision."
Question: Did the Special Council exonerate the President from any criminal wrongdoing?
Answer:
"if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."
Question: Why did the Special Council not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime?
Answer:
"It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited."
"The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."
"And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."
"From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President."
Question: was the Special Council investigation justified or was it a witch hunt?
Answer:
"The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office."
"That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."
"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American."
Question: Why bother investigating the President if you can't determine that he committed a crime?
Answer:
"First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged."
Question: Is the President above the law? Can they commit crimes without repercussion?
Answer:
"And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."
So Stevil's understanding of all of the above,
- Special Council didn't directly accuse the President of committing a crime.
- Special Council would have exonerated the President of committing a crime if they determined his innocence. They could not determine innocence, so they did not. But they aren't accusing him of a crime because that is a matter left for a process other than the criminal justice system a.k.a. congress and the impeachment process.
- The Special Council are not recommending the impeachment process and are not going to make a recommendation for one and are not going to offer an opinion that the President carried out a crime even if the President did commit a crime.
- The Special Council have investigated the President with regards to obstruction and have documented their findings as facts rather than as recommendations.
- It is upto congress to determine if the president should be accused of committing a crime (they ought to consult legal advice given the findings documented in the Special Council report rather than ask Mueller to provide advice)
- It is upto the public to offer support of congress to go down the path of impeachment. Will the public punish Congress at the polls if they don't do their duty of oversight, or will the public punish Congress if they do press the issue further towards impeachment?