3 ms·

This is tantamount to saying that he did not prove a negative. Of course he didn't.

kenjackson 6y ago
No it’s not. Mueller stated “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”. Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President. And the final Senate report details even more communication than previously believed. But since it came out in August, it really got less media attention than it deserved. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea...
- vharuck 6y ago
  Specifically, the report stated there could be no accusation that any sitting President committed a crime because it would be unfair. Mueller knew the Justice Department would not charge a sitting President, meaning the President would've been effectively denied the right to defend himself in court. Sadly, Barr took the opportunity to put a different PR spin on the lack of accusation.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  >“if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so” Say your spouse suspects you of being in contact with your ex, so she hires a private investigator. She is not sure whether you spoke to your ex in person, by phone, or through one of several dozen close confidants with whom you regularly interact. After the investigation, she asks the PI whether he is confident that you did not make contact with your ex. How could he possibly be? The sheer number of contact interactions makes it impossible to rule out. This is why our criminal justice system operates on the presumption of innocence. For many crimes, it is practically impossible to arrive at "confidence that the [accused] clearly did not commit a crime". >Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President. Given that the report stated outright that there was no evidence of collusion, I assume this is in reference to the question of obstruction, which is out of scope.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    You need to go back and look at the statement he made. He never says anything to the effect of "you can't prove a negative". Or "we scoured everything and could find no evidence whatsoever, but still doesn't mean that there might have been something he dud". No, immediately following the statement about "we would have said so", he goes into -- "a current president can not be charged with a federal crime ...". He then goes on to say that he was bound by this property. That's an odd next statement for someone you think is innocent, but just can't prove a negative. With a new attorney general and Trump about to no longer be an an active President, we may revisit this.

No it’s not. Mueller stated “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”. Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President. And the final Senate report details even more communication than previously believed. But since it came out in August, it really got less media attention than it deserved. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea...

vharuck 6y ago
Specifically, the report stated there could be no accusation that any sitting President committed a crime because it would be unfair. Mueller knew the Justice Department would not charge a sitting President, meaning the President would've been effectively denied the right to defend himself in court. Sadly, Barr took the opportunity to put a different PR spin on the lack of accusation.
marcusverus 6y ago
>“if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so” Say your spouse suspects you of being in contact with your ex, so she hires a private investigator. She is not sure whether you spoke to your ex in person, by phone, or through one of several dozen close confidants with whom you regularly interact. After the investigation, she asks the PI whether he is confident that you did not make contact with your ex. How could he possibly be? The sheer number of contact interactions makes it impossible to rule out. This is why our criminal justice system operates on the presumption of innocence. For many crimes, it is practically impossible to arrive at "confidence that the [accused] clearly did not commit a crime". >Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President. Given that the report stated outright that there was no evidence of collusion, I assume this is in reference to the question of obstruction, which is out of scope.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  You need to go back and look at the statement he made. He never says anything to the effect of "you can't prove a negative". Or "we scoured everything and could find no evidence whatsoever, but still doesn't mean that there might have been something he dud". No, immediately following the statement about "we would have said so", he goes into -- "a current president can not be charged with a federal crime ...". He then goes on to say that he was bound by this property. That's an odd next statement for someone you think is innocent, but just can't prove a negative. With a new attorney general and Trump about to no longer be an an active President, we may revisit this.