Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge him

[_Res Ipsa]

Bach is reciting the right wing talking points du jour. All prosecutors have a special set of ethical duties that amount to exonerating innocent folks if that’s where the evidence leads. They have a duty to consider both exculpatory and inculpatory evidence. And you can’t consider inculpatory evidence if you don’t look for it. If Mueller had concluded that the evidence exonerated Trump, he had an ethical duty to say so.

The people on the left and right who are pissing on Mueller disgust me.

[_canpakes]

The people on the left and right who are pissing on Mueller disgust me.

I will freely admit to not paying much attention to televised news sources lately (actually, ever) so I don’t know what other folks or Congresscritters allegedly want to ask Mueller about above and beyond what is in the report. Seems as if such questions, asked during any testimony by Mueller, would be akin to asking for his opinion, and I don’t see that as something ultimately as helpful as some folks would expect.

Otherwise, what are the additional fact-based information items missing from the report that Mueller should be asked about?

[_Res Ipsa]

The people on the left and right who are pissing on Mueller disgust me.

I will freely admit to not paying much attention to televised news sources lately (actually, ever) so I don’t know what other folks or Congresscritters allegedly want to ask Mueller about above and beyond what is in the report. Seems as if such questions, asked during any testimony by Mueller, would be akin to asking for his opinion, and I don’t see that as something ultimately as helpful as some folks would expect.

Otherwise, what are the additional fact-based information items missing from the report that Mueller should be asked about?

As I said upthread, I think Mueller’s wrong on this. It may be that there is a need to clarify certain points in the report. Mueller is a witness to what instructions he was given in addition to his initial assignment, any limitations placed on his authority, conversations with Rosenstein, Barr, or any other administration official. That certainly would be relevant, factual information that is not part of the report. Questions about the scope of the investigation would also be factual in nature. For example: did he investigate the possibility that Russia had information about Trump that could be used to blackmail him. I think that would be outside the scope of his assignment, but that would be a legitimate question to ask.

But, I agree that questions asking Mueller to interpret the evidence he gathered, other than those expressed in the report, would simply be his opinion on issues that are for Congress to decide.

[_canpakes]

OK, that is helpful, Res. Thanks for your answer.

[_subgenius]

... But Mueller did not say that his failure to charge was due to insufficient evidence of guilt: he said he simply was not allowed by the DOJ policy to charge a sitting president.

can you cite the quote where Mueller or the Mueller report says "Trump is/was guilty" of anything or something?
Saying "not confident" that someone is innocent is exactly the same as saying "not confident" that someone is guilty.
Nevertheless....so much hair...so much fire.

[_Chap]

Saying "not confident" that someone is innocent is exactly the same as saying "not confident" that someone is guilty.

In a US or English courtroom, anything short of persuading the jury to say 'We're confident that the defendant is guilty' automatically leads to an acquittal. Innocent or guilty are the only two options, and to get the latter the confidence meter has to tip all the way over to guilty.

But we are not in a US/English courtroom at present. We are trying to work out what Mueller intended to convey when his used the 'not confident he is innocent' formulation in his recent public statement. And he made that statement in the context of Trump and his supporters repeatedly claiming that the Mueller report 'totally exonerated the president'.

He is saying, in effect 'No, we were not able to totally exonerate the president. We can't be sure, after all the evidence we have seen and the testimony we have heard, that the president did not commit a crime'.

In Scots law, as opposed to English law, there is a third verdict available to a jury: neither 'guilty' nor 'not guilty' but 'not proven'. The latter verdict may be used when:

Not proven in Scots law

... the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction.

That verdict seems to fit Mueller's situation quite well.

[_canpakes]

Saying "not confident" that someone is innocent is exactly the same as saying "not confident" that someone is guilty.

You should work for a cigarette manufacturer, as a PR guy. : )

[_moksha]

It’s a little more complicated than that. On conspiracy, he said he did not find sufficient evidence to charge anyone in the Trump Campaign (and, by inference, Trump).

The report corroborated the stories from the New York Times and Washington Post. To not find sufficient evidence means that they were turning a blind eye to much of the evidence.

On obstruction, he said they could not charge Trump by DOJ policy, but they looked at the evidence to see if they could exonerate him. They concluded that they couldn’t. As you said, not an exoneration.

Thus he passed the buck to a Congress without the will or votes to bring Trump to justice. Mueller abdicated his responsibility to a policy that effectively made the report unnecessary - he was unwilling to make a judgment call in the field and chose to rely on regulations unsuitable to the task at hand.

[_moksha]

I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.
-- Donald Trump, Tweet, 4:57 AM May 30, 2019

[_Some Schmo]

I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.
-- Donald Trump, Tweet, 4:57 AM May 30, 2019

When I read this tweet I just about fell out of my chair laughing. What a maroon.

Trump: master of the self-pwn.