The Mueller Report thread

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2019, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As a Steelers fan I know you'll appreciate this comparison.  When Ben wasn't indicted for the alleged rape at the bar the DA in that county gave an insanely unprofessional speech excoriating Ben for his lack of morals and his horrible conduct, but oh, by the way, I don't have any evidence of a crime.  It's a public relations way of revealing what you know will be an unpopular finding.  Mueller is doing the same thing in a less obvious way.  The prosecutor's job is to prove a case.  If they can't prove a case then the person being investigated can, and should, claim exoneration.  In general I have a lot of respect for Mueller, he ran a tight ship and, one egregious example aside, prevented leaks.  But this last move is a cowardly cop out on his part.  He'd had done better to just state I have no evidence that support obstruction charges against Trump and leave it at that.

I disagree. You're making assumptions. First, the standard for indicting versus a guilty verdict is different. So there are two different levels of evidence at play there. Which one (if any) wasn't met? Did Mueller's decision come about because of DoJ guidelines on not indicting a sitting president, thus leaving the decision to the head of the DoJ? Did his decision come from a position where he did not feel it was within his scope to make the determination, whether because of the memo appointing him or because it required an interpretation of obstruction not within his purview to provide? Those are questions that you are assuming answers to with your position.