How Mueller tried to nail Trump without a crime, but still wound up exonerating him

Flopping Aces ^ | 04-19-19 | DrJohn

[Starman417]

The media was quick to dismiss Donald Trump's claims of cooperation with the Mueller team but the assertions were correct. Trump's level of cooperation was unprecedented. Unlike obama, Trump did not at any time assert Executive Privilege, did not offer material witnesses immunity, did not allow the potential witnesses to accompany the other witnesses as attorneys, and no one destroyed evidence. The differences could not be more stark.

Still, the Mueller team would go on to try to ruin Trump without any crimes being committed.

Some, like Trey Gowdy, had argued that, if no charges were to be brought, that the report not be published, but Trump waived that off.

The key finding?

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

No collusion, no conspiracy. Period.

But let's get on to the obstruction. Mueller highlighted ten instances of possible obstruction. Remember, ALL of them are consequential to the conspiracy against Trump. They did not occur on their own. The left wing media, naturally, seized upon this and has been blasting it out as often as possible. They have also been droning on about the sentence

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,”

There are two problems with this.

1. It does exonerate Trump
2. Exoneration is NOT the job of the Prosecutor

As pointed out by Robert Ray, former Whitewater Independent Counsel (On Laura Ingraham last night), the job of the prosecutor is binary- either the prosecutor brings charges or does not. The job of the prosecutor is NOT to exonerate. Mueller decided against bringing charges on the issue of obstruction:

During a probe that lasted 22 months and was handed to Barr on Friday, Mueller did gather evidence on the question of whether President Trump obstructed justice, but determined it was “insufficient” to merit a conclusion the president acted to stop or stymie the investigation.

That IS exoneration. That is where Mueller should have left it, but his rabid pack of angry democrats had to somehow stick it to Trump and they did. Andy McCarthy:

In his report, Mueller didn’t resolve the issue. If he had been satisfied that there was no obstruction crime, he said, he would have so found. He claimed he wasn’t satisfied. Yet he was also not convinced that there was sufficient proof to charge. Therefore, he made no decision, leaving it to Attorney General William Barr to find that there was no obstruction.

This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.

If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.

Anything else was — and is — a smear. Worse than that, it flouts the Constitution.

AG Barr made clear that he used the same framework Mueller used and not the DOJ perspective that a sitting President cannot be indicted yet in concert with DAG Rod Rosenstein and career prosecutors at the DOJ determined that nothing done by Trump rose to the level of obstruction.

And that is driving the left wing media nuts.

[reasonisfaith]

The ultimate end of progressivism is to produce the opposite of what it claims to seek.

The Muller Exoneration of Trump is simply another example of the inevitability of this process.

[samtheman]

Exoneration is NOT the job of the Prosecutor
—
Giuliana has been stressing this.

[reasonisfaith]

That progressivism will produce the opposite of its stated goals is pretty much as certain as any other law of nature.

There will probably be some among the more intelligent members of the deep state who come to recognize this fact, and then decide to join our side.

[bigbob]

Most people are pretty dumb. Sorry, but it’s true, just go to Walmart. All they’re going to remember is someone investigated Trump for a bunch of stuff and he was found innocent.

Mueller may not be able to make a binary decision but regular people can. You’re either charged with a crime or you aren’t. Trump wasn’t.

That’s the take-away for tens of millions of voters.

[gunnyg]

Don’t Mess Around w/THIS POTUSA!
*****************
GunnyG@PlanetWTF?

*****
TRUMP.45!
THE ONE AND ONLY!
********************

[ridesthemiles]

I think Trump showed extraordinary patience thru all of this.

I would have totally GONE BRONSON.

[Savage Beast]

Mueller ought to get a trophy--or at least a medal--from the Not-Terribly-Good Club--or at the very least a citation in the Incomplete Book of Failures, the Club's Official Handbook:

https://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Book-Failures-Official-Not-Terribly-Good/dp/0525475893

[Savage Beast]

Hillary Clinton also certainly deserves recognition by the Club. She couldn’t even get elected in a rigged election!

[trebb]

In our legal system...not guilty means innocent and innocent equates to exoneration...thaty’s the way our Justice system is supposed to be...