Note to Team Mueller: If you don't indict, you can't incite

The Hill ^ | 4/4/2019 | john Solomon

[bitt]

I’ve covered the Justice Department for three decades, and seldom have I seen a story like the one published in the New York Times this week under the headline, “Some on Mueller's Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed.”

What concerned me most is that the story’s anonymous allegations reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the role prosecutors play, including special counsels such as Robert Mueller.

The job of prosecutors is not, as the Times headline suggested, to pen “damaging” narratives about people they couldn’t indict. And it’s not their job to air those people’s dirty laundry, or that of suspects outside of a grand jury room or a courtroom.

Mueller concluded there wasn’t evidence President Trump colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election, and therefore no indictment was warranted. And he punted on the question of obstruction, leaving his bosses — Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — to determine that there wasn’t enough evidence to indict the president on that charge.

And, most significantly, there were no other people charged. That means Trump legally could not be named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an obstruction plot.

At that point, no federal prosecutor has the right to impugn an uncharged investigative target’s reputation through anonymous leaks or literary reports. They are not allowed to anonymously inject into the court of public opinion any “damaging” information about what they couldn’t succeed at offering in a court of law, as proof of criminality.

[bitt]

p

[Undecided 2012]

anonymous, so in other words it’s BS

Real reporters put names to stories

[elpadre]

Remember the Mueller team was composed of Democratic donors and Clinton supporters.

[Reno89519]

Time to investigate the investigators. Who’s leaking?

[Cementjungle]

This is political to them, so they’ll inflict as much damage as they can. They would have liked to find some crime, but this will suffice in the absence of that.

[proxy_user]

This is what Mueller himself thinks.

So I believe it is highly unlikely that anything of the sort was included in his report. More tears for the Dems!

[blueplum]

I ran across the below link earlier today. What Dowd said in the interview explains a lot. Mueller knew that Trump would yell ‘witchhunt’ all the while cooperating with Mueller and encouraging everyone else to also cooperate fully. The NYT article juxtaposed against the interview shows that the NYT is spitting nails mad they have nothing to go on and will not have anything to go on and are willing to make anything up to fill white space.

link: (h/t detective)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3727349/posts

[bitt]

do not miss this thread

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3739778/posts?page=1

[Seruzawa]

Wake me when one of those MFers is indicted. Is Barr awake or is he snoozing like Sessions?

[Sa-teef]

The New York Slimes is apparently using "A friend of a friend of a Mule Team member" as their source.

Bad journalism as stated in John Solomon's article.

Criminal behavior by the Mule Team member if he is talking shop to a non-team member. Someone needs to be indicted for this, but I'll likely win the lottery (which I never buy a ticket for) before we see some action on this illegal behavior.

[ByteMercenary]

As has been surmised by many before me, since no names are provided by the NYT and no evidence presented, we can safely assume the article is nothing but innuendo and fabrication.

The NYT slips even farther into irrelevancy.

[RonnG]

If you can ‘Indict a ham sandwich’ as it is often said and they couldn’t indict Trump nor anyone else for that matter, then it follows that Trump must be as innocent as it gets.

[GOPJ]

At the New York Times the 'unnamed source' is the Trump-hater one desk over. He an old gypsy with a crystal ball and he lies... (yes, the sh*ts at the New York Times think they can read Trump's mind by dragging out the dark feelings in their own little brains). Are they nuts or what?

Times 'journalists' can also read the minds of Mueller's team... It's called 'projection' and they are killing a once honorable profession because they're stupid.

[1Old Pro]

95% of the msm reports are inaccurate. It’s propaganda, not news.

[USS Alaska]

And, most significantly, there were no other people charged. That means Trump legally could not be named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an obstruction plot.

One of the best reporters alive today. This guy really does his home work and stays away from speculation.

What a breath of fresh air, knows fact from fiction, is not intimidated and unlike Hannity, speaks very little but always stays within the lines of reality.

[centurion316]

The hard core Democrats who were appointed to the Mueller team have reported to their political masters in the Democrat Party. That’s why the Democrats in Congress and in the media are in such a frenzy. They believe that the report and the backup documents that support the report will have dirt on Trump that will be politically useful. It’s useless in court, but they could care less. They are trying to overthrow the government, not win some court case.

They have to find a way to publish redacted material and the Attorney General intends to follow the law which will keep this information out of the hands of both the Congress and the media. They intend to break the law, cheat, and take care of their legal liability when they have regained power. That’s why it’s so important to do something about the crimes of the Obama Administration and the Clinton Campaign to frame Trump. If they get away with that, they will be emboldened to continue their crime wave.