Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Mueller said specifically they wouldn't say so without an indictment as the accused would have no legal process to show otherwise.
That is self-serving and hypocritical idiocy. Strongly implying has potentially similar consequences for Trump as those if Mueller had specifically said that Trump did commit a crime. There would be similar consequences re the various excuses Mueller states such as “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,” or “A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator” and “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,” . . . “A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” And "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" of an accusation "could imperil the President’s ability to govern," All of those excuses for not clearly stating that Trump committed a crime of obstruction apply equally to IMPLYING that he did commit the crime. And, very importantly re the last excuse, Mueller's implication has imperiled the President's ability to govern.
So spare me the supposed noble reasons for not specifically saying that Trump committed a crime. The implication that he did are almost as damaging. So, if Mueller actually, personally concluded that Trump committed a crime, it was his duty to conclude so. Otherwise, what was the purpose of investigating Trump if he could not say that he committed a crime. If he could not have made a conclusion of criminality re Trump, that should not have been part of the scope of his investigation. That should have been left to the agencies, political or criminal, to investigate and make a conclusive finding. And the scope of Mueller's mission should have remained solely the investigation of Russian interference.
And there is, apparently, strong evidence that Mueller knew very early on that Trump had not conspired with Russia, so should have dropped that part of the investigation well before obstruction inquiries were made.
Mueller essentially said we would have but we couldn't. Congress, you're up.
|
That is BS. He certainly could have solely stated that the evidence unequivocally pointed to Trump committing a crime. There is no excuse for him saying “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement.”
“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”
It was not his business to exonerate Trump. Under American law, he is presumed innocent until convicted otherwise. His business was to find if Trump committed a crime. If he could not conclude that, then the President is presumed innocent . . . regardless of what he may have said that "might possibly" seem otherwise.
It was not his business to do Congress's business. Congress would have been "up" as you put it, regardless of what Mueller concluded. The notion that he was teeing up Congress to do what he couldn't is disgusting. Chit or get off the pot. Otherwise he's just contributing to the massive case of Congressional political diarrhea that we are about to be submitted to.