That was the decision of one man interpreting policy. Another could've disobeyed such policy. As to Mueller appearing before congress, he could sit there and answer questions by reading the report for all I care, I doubt he'd disobey a subpoena.
Decision of one man? WTF!? Can you not read? Mueller stated that it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting President. 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. I never stated that he will disobey a subpoena. But, he is saying if he is subpoenaed that he will simply read from the report when asked questions. There has been discussion about an appearance before congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office. So beyond what I have said here today, and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the justice department or congress.
interpretation of one man on "longstanding" policy fine, let him read the report, Americans can't be bothered with reading it themselves.
He reiterated that a sitting president cannot be indicted even if sealed while in office. There is no sealed indictment on Trump flowing from Mueller's work per Mueller's own statements.
"Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. " I take that to mean they cannot charge a president even under seal while in office, so there are no sealed indictments. There is agreement among scholars that if the statute of limitations is lapsing, they can charge. I.e post 2020 if he were re-elected
Yeah, which is wrong. He can "interpret it" as "unconstitutional" if he feels it's the duty of congress, but most Judges will call his "unconstitutional" statement as BS.