That's actually not the passage.
"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."
I'm familiar with that sections as well, Page 1, Introduction to Volume II.
Consider the third point they detailed on Page 2. To sum up, it states that to find the President guilty, while he can also not be charged, would harm the Presidency and the ability to govern.
To the point:
Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice.
So do you believe, given this consideration, Mueller has found the President guilty, but refused to claim as much, given the explanations above?
I ask because it's clear Mueller was concerned about finding guilt, but having no means of prosecuting. If finding guilt, Mueller described the potential negative impact on the President, and his ability to conduct the duties of the office.
With that in mind, hasn't that occurred anyway, based on how the Democrats in the House have responded?
Why would Mueller add to chaos, while declaring the objective was to avoid it?
