Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
That is a portion of what he said in his opening statement:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
|
Justice Department policy does not prevent making a determination re the President's conduct. Making a determination and indicting are not the same thing. If there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was criminal intent in Trump's actions (criminal intent would be necessary in a case where there is no underlying crime), then Mueller could have made that determination. It would be a dereliction of his duty not to make the determination if he believed it and the evidence showed it, but it would be foolish, or obviously biased, to determine he committed a crime if criminal intent could not be established. There is no doubt that Mueller would know that. That all may well be why he refused to make the determination as to whether the President committed a crime, mainly being that criminal intent would be too difficult to establish.
And the notion that he didn't make the determination on the basis of fairness is deceptive on its face. If fairness were the issue, then simply stating that there was not sufficient evidence to make that determination. Period. Case closed. The way Mueller did it was not, in any way, "fair." As Scott said, it was "crazy contortioneering."