View Single Post
Old 07-25-2019, 09:31 PM   #22
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

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."

Mueller clarified that he did not intend to support Lieu’s implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion.

That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it.

Mueller also said the President could be indicted for obstruction after he was out of office, he did not say he would or should be.
This is totally incoherent. Were volumes 1 and 2 prosecuted under different Justice Department policy? Were there different levels of determination of culpability applied in volume 1 than in volume 2? Were issues of crime addressed in volume 1 but not in volume 2? Why so? And if crime was not addressed only in volume 2, what was? What was the point of investigating Trump or his campaign if not to determine if he or they committed a crime?

I can understand investigating Russian interference. And that should include the totality of it, not just a connection to Trump. Trump's opposition candidate and opposition party certainly could have been investigated in that connection as well. The Dems paid for the dossier which was informed by Russian sources. The Dems had political contacts with the Russians before Trump did.

But if no conclusion could be drawn re Trump because of policy, then why investigate him? And why make a conclusion in volume 1 but not in volume 2?

The point is, he could have made a conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of obstruction in volume 2. But it was not DOJ policy that prevented it, rather there were sticky, difficult questions of law and fact, as Mueller admitted, and Barr cited, which prevented the determination that Trump committed a crime.

The hazy reference to DOJ policy, and the determination (there actually was a determination, an actual conclusion in volume 2) that Mueller could not exonerate Trump was bogus legal gibberish. He did not have the power to exonerate. He only had the power to accuse or present sufficient evidence for conviction. Neither of which he did. But saying he could not exonerate, had the air of accusation, which belies Mueller's plea that he was being fair.

In actuality, not only did he not have the power to exonerate (he even admitted that there was no historical precedent for the policy he put forward on exoneration), making it superfluous to say he couldn't, he did have the power to state that there was sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed justice. But, in fact, there was not. The issues of fact and law prevented that, not DOJ policy.

There was no underlying crime for which an investigation could be obstructed. So the overbearing need, therefor, requires proof that Trump had actual criminal intent re obstruction. Which was a burden too difficult to prosecute. No prosecutor would bring such a charge without sufficient evidence. Unless he was particularly biased and vindictive.

Last edited by detbuch; 07-25-2019 at 10:06 PM..
detbuch is offline