Logic can and should be used to make hypothesis. But he stated in emphatically there was no investigation as a fact, rather than stating it was a strong possibility, and giving the reasons you have posted. If it turns out it is just a hypothesis, and his hypothesis is completely wrong, his credibility would take a huge if not fatal shot.
On the one hand you suggest that Sekulow should not assume that Mueller and Rosenstein are beyond reproach, then you say that Sekulow should trust someone like Rosenstein if he's told that there is no investigation.
That's not what I said at all, I said you were making the assumption that they were above reproach, and following DoJ protocol correctly, in order to further assume there is no investigation.
Rosenstein actually DID tell Trump (and the world) that there is no investigation into obstruction of justice, but legally he could not do this directly or even through back channels. Instead, he authored the press release on June 15th that told everyone not to believe what they read in the media.
Sorry again, but I'm not seeing that. Rosenstein's statement was completely nondescript with regard to the context. Could it have been about the WP article regarding obstruction? Possibly, but that WP came out the day before, and the night Rosenstein's statement came out the immediate speculation was that it was referring to the claim that Jared Kushner was under investigation, which had just come out that same day.
I'd like to believe that the President isn't under investigation, and as of now I take Sekulow for his word, but until we know that it's more than just "logic" and "assumptions" I'm afraid the matter isn't completely settled.
Jay Sekulow may be an attorney who is working for Donald Trump, but he's not functioning as his attorney when he appears on a TV show and makes arguments to a TV audience. It's a TV show, not a courtroom. If he's confident enough to say there's no investigation, then I'm willing to take his word for it.
That's not what I said at all, I said you were making the assumption that they were above reproach, and following DoJ protocol correctly, in order to further assume there is no investigation.
I know how lawyers work. Even if I didn't trust Rosenstein and Mueller, I'd tend to believe that they'd conduct himself within the limits of their professional responsibilities in a case like this. Donald Trump gets more popular with every pile of mud that is slung at him, so it doesn't do them any good to throw mud without any evidence behind it.
Rosenstein's statement was completely nondescript with regard to the context.
It had to be completely nondescript with regard to its context. The U.S. Department of Justice is not permitted to make public statements about its investigations. That not only means meets it can't leak information to the media about its own investigations, but it can't confirm or deny the accuracy of information that is being reported in the media.
The only reason the DOJ would ever issue a press release like the one you saw the other day is that it knows damn well that a bunch of lies have been reported in the media, but it can't come right out and say this. The general "don't believe everything you hear" message is the best they can do without breaching their own legal responsibilities.
I'm afraid the matter isn't completely settled.
In that case, you might want to turn off the TV, the radio and the internet for the rest of your life -- because you're always going to be seeing crap that isn't true but is put out there simply to cause you to live in a constant state of alarm.