Robert Mueller reaches an illogical inconclusion…
(Paul Chesser, Liberty Headlines) Since the release of Attorney General William Barr’s summarization of findings by Robert Mueller, after the Special Counsel’s investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian meddlers in the 2016 election cycle, Democrats and the leftist legacy media have clung to one phrase: NO EXONERATION.
What they ignore is Barr’s explanation of why there will be no charges against the president for obstruction of justice (since there is absolutely NO evidence of collusion). Instead Mueller left the decision about obstruction in the laps of Barr, Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and the Justice Department.
In reality Mueller appears to throw the Democrats a morsel to grandstand about before the cameras at CNN, MSNBC and the three major news networks, by saying his report “does not exonerate” Trump with regard to obstruction. But if you scrutinize how Mueller evaluated the obstruction considerations, in reality the president was exonerated with regard to obstruction, as well as collusion.
In the attorney general’s summary he reports that Mueller “made a thorough factual investigation” into the matter of potential obstruction of justice, and “considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department (of Justice) standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”
Barr wrote in his explanation, to the top Republican and Democrat officials of both the House and Senate Judiciary committees, that the special counsel “did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.”
- Mueller looked at Trump’s conduct in light of whether it could be interpreted that he obstructed justice.
- He evaluated that conduct under DOJ’s well-established standards with regard to whether prosecutors should press charges, or if they should decline to.
- Mueller did not have sufficient evidence to level any obstruction charges against the president despite his “thorough factual investigation.”
This means that the otherwise prosecution-happy Mueller was utterly devoid of evidence against Trump regarding the obstruction charges, just as much as he had no evidence of collusion. Otherwise, if he did, you can be certain he would have run with such an accusation.
Instead we get sheer cowardice on the part of Mueller. If he could not conclude he had the evidence to indict Trump, then Mueller has no business saying he could “not exonerate him.” As a responsible veteran former Assistant Attorney General and FBI Director, Mueller at best should have said he did not have evidence to press charges.
Barr explains that Mueller “sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.”
Again, when professional prosecutors review evidence and conclude they cannot get a conviction, they simply decline to bring charges. But they do not also announce to the world that the person they suspected is “not exonerated.”
Barr additionally explains that Mueller determined that President Trump was not guilty of the underlying crime of collusion; that he had no evidence of “corrupt intent” on the part of the president; and that the president had no intent of obstructing any “pending or contemplated proceeding” (in other words, pressing charges against him).
In addition Mueller noted that much of what Trump did that could be examined as potential “obstruction” was done “in public view,” which undermines the idea that he secretly tried to undermine justice.
Yet Mueller had to tell the nation that the president was “not exonerated.”
The only explanation for him doing so is to send the message to his Democrat, Deep State, and media friends that, “I’m sorry fellas, I tried, but I just couldn’t pull it off. There’s just no proof.”