If we had had confidence
Mueller’s 10-ish minute statement came after a nearly two-year-long investigation into Russia’s attempted interference in the 2016 election and whether the President, or anyone close to him, had obstructed that probe. Mueller’s words on the charge of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign largely comported with the 400+ page report released by the special counsel’s office this spring, making clear that there was “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”
But it was Mueller’s words on the possibility that Trump had sought to obstruct the investigation where Mueller clearly wanted to leave his mark. He emphasized two things of real importance — both of which, with a bit of reading between the lines, provided a glimpse into what Mueller really thinks regarding Trump and obstruction. Here they are:
1) “If we had had confidence that the President had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so.”
Which means they had no such confidence.
2) “Charging the President with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.”
Because of DoJ policy. And because they couldn’t charge him, they also couldn’t say “but there’s reason to think he’s not innocent” because it’s not fair to do that when a trial is ruled out.
Mueller knew — or at least hoped — this would be his last major moment in the klieg lights.
He chose his words carefully. He emphasized certain elements of his report, particularly where he and Barr seemed to differ, purposely. He wanted to make clear where his hands were tied, why they were tied and what that tying them meant for his ability to bring a case against Trump.
What Mueller was saying Wednesday is actually better understood by what he was not saying — and what he was not saying was that the President of the United States was an innocent victim in all of this.
If he had meant that, he would have said so.
The upshot is that Trump has to be impeached. Whether that will happen or not is another question.
Although I understand why he won’t, if he just said “We would have charged Trump with a crime were it not for the DoJ policy” then I think it would be much harder for Republicans and Fox News to spin it. As it is, they can just refuse to read between the (obvious) lines.
Can you say “unindicted co-conspirator”? Sure you can.
With so many of his cronies banged up in one hoosegow or another, Trump stands like the Last of the Mohicans….No, surviving Mohicans might be offended. No make that The Last Rose of Summer…. No, that would forever tarnish a beautiful song. So make that….
.
WE APOLOGISE FOR THIS INTERRUPTION. NORMAL TRANSMISSION WILL RESUME SHORTLY.
The last turd in the colon?
Red Tide, he doesn’t want to make any statement that is too strong for fear of providing a defence to ex-President Trump that a public statement plainly implying his guilt compromised his right to a fair trial before unbiased jurors.
Although, at this point how you could get together a jury that wasn’t biased one way or the other escapes me.
You mean like the statement Comey made about Hillary right before the election that compromised her right to a fair election result?
@iknklast Don’t forget IOKIYAR (It’s OK If You Are Republican).
Yeah, I remember that. Anything goes if you’re a Republican. Nothing goes if you’re a Democrat.
Hey, you two sweeties are really starting to catch on!
opps, that was supposed to have a /patronising bullshit tag after it.
I’ll show myself out.
Re #3 above: a handy little or those who have lost count. And I am sure that it is a work in progress.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/22/how-many-of-trumps-close-advisers-have-been-convicted-and-who-are-they
AoS #5:
Thanks for that. The other half just came out of the bathroom declaring “I tried, but Trump just won’t leave. I’ll have to try again later.”
tiggerthewing, you are most welcome :-)
Rob, I think we know you well enough now for any tags to be unnecessary. That said, ‘sweeties’? How very dare you! It’s ‘little ladies’, if you please.