Posted on 06/03/2019 6:44:28 AM PDT by DBCJR
I’m sorry to be a broken record on this, but this line from Robert Mueller infuriates me:
“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.” Mueller
— David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) May 29, 2019
That’s not how it works in America. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed, they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”
That was one of a couple of lines that I found troubling. Mueller sounded like he wanted to get the President but could not. When you look for evidence of a crime and find none, you simply say so. He also found no proof that the President obstructed justice. He should have simply stated so, not what he said.
From a liar’s perspective, its actually a work of art... which is why it’s so infuriating... Just look at all of the lies packed into a single sentence:
“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.”
1. He is guilty... we just cant prove it
2. I was TRYING to exonerate him and I could not
3. You are guilty until proven innocent
4. The purpose of the prosecutor is to exonerate the accused
These are just the lies embedded in that one sentence.
In context with other things said, this statement contains even more lies.
Only the dumbing down of America makes this work. 50 years ago, everybody who stood to gain from a president’s troubles would still be outraged by a prosecutor operating under the premise the president is guilty until proven innocent. Today, there are 2 generations of young Americans that have no clue how government/law works. So the line cited in the article doesn’t sound nonsensical and outrageous to them. If you are older, it is preposterous.
Of course, the older Rats believe the ends justify the means, so they don’t care.
Well said.
That was one of a couple of lines that I found troubling. Mueller sounded like he wanted to get the President but could not.
~~~
That boggles the mind.
Do you realize how much on the straight and narrow you have to run a campaign not to get nailed by a special prosecutor with all the powers and latitude they have? Just about any previous president would have been nailed, at least on a process crime, probably more, and candidate Clinton is a treasure trove of crime.
I’m not saying that Trump is naturally the straightest arrow in the quiver, but he knew the bullseye target was on his own back. Remember when the media mocked him for saying they had him wiretapped?
Mueller wanted him bad. He didn’t even have to be a partisan leading an angry horde of dem lawyers to want it. When you’re set up as special council and the media spotlight is on you for two years, you want to produce something.
The real sham of it as was that Trump was the target, not Russia. Everyone seems to gloss over this very important point. It was all politics.
I shall repeat here:
THE SOB MUELLER, DESTROYED THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
WE SHOULD ALL DESPISE HIM FOR THAT.
Somehow that has GOT to be restored.
and I am not a lawyer.
Obviously this (stupidly or intentionally) leaves out the case where investigators look for evidence that a crime was committed and they do find such evidence. That's what happened here.
Not a lawyer either, but this is something I noticed from Mueller and realized instantly that we have lost something important.
HIS personal ‘confidence’ does not (MAY NOT)take the place of EVIDENCE
How stupid can he BE? How stupid is the MSM that NO ONE in the media catches that or calls him on this patently obvious lie?
Thank you KC, because this is something that affects us ordinary folks.
After all our founders went through, it is fitting that we, no matter anything more than being citizens, should be furious that, that corrupt maniac took away one of our most precious rights.
Agreed, and he did it without batting an eye. So corrupt.
If I had confidence that Robert Mueller was not a low-down snake in the grass I would say so right now.Anyone can play that game, Bobby baby.
We’re all exonerated to begin with, until somebody comes up with enough evidence to show we’re guilty - which hasn’t happened for Trump no matter how fast Mueller talks......
“Insufficient evidence” = not guilty
That's right, but Mueller did not say they had insufficient evidence. I have not read it, but apparently his report has about 200 pages of evidence of obstruction of justice.
"Obstruction of justice" doesn't mean much to most people, but prosecutors take it seriously because they don't think it can be seen as acceptable to just block or interfere with criminal investigations.
So Mueller feels that crimes were committed (obstruction of justice). He couldn't indict a sitting president, and he didn't want to verbally indict him. But he did want to point out that it is not true that they had "insufficient evidence".
Yes he did on the matter of COLLUSION, the PURPOSE of the investigation. So, try again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.