I’ve seen a lot of posts claiming Müller is claiming proof of a negative is required to exonerate Trump but that’s not really what he’s saying. Or, at least that’s not how the Dims are hearing him because really what he said today is nothing different than what he wrote in his report.
What he’s saying is, that since the president of the US cannot be indicted like a usual citizen, without a Constitutional crisis ensuing (because there are no mechanics in the Constitution for “arresting” a sitting president), since that can’t be done, then he, his team, given what they *did* find, in their opinion, cannot clear him of a charge of obstruction.
In other words what he’s saying is that given what they did find, they would be remiss to clear him of the charge, but can’t charge him because charging a sitting president of any crime is beyond the scope of the special prosecutor, or any law enforcement officer really, again because the Constitution doesn’t allow it.
So he’s implying, in as strong a way as he can, that he believes the House should start impeachment proceedings because they are the only ones, Constitutionally speaking, who *can* charge him with a “high crime or misdemeanor”.
But again this is nothing different than what he already said in the report. Now that he’s said it publicly (orally) maybe it will add more fuel to the impeachment fire. We shall see in the next few days and weeks.
But to be clear he’s not saying anyone needs to prove a negative. In fact he’s saying the opposite. And he didn’t say anything new today.
I don’t think your interpretation is quite correct. When has Mueller ever presented ANY evidence of obstruction of justice?
I can't understand your explanation of Mueller's supposed logic. Despite how you believe Mueller is twisting this, eventually you, Mueller, Congress or anyone else, must, at some point, land on a positive statement - "Trump did XYZ action"
If you have read the Mueller report, please tell me what that is.
Impeachment is NOT the only Constitutional option to Presidential misbehavior. Impeachment and removal is and has been an extreme measure, never actually implemented in our history. The usual and primary remedy is, and Constitutionally should be, for the electorate to remove.
If comes to a head in Congress, and the House does impeach, the case that obstruction occurred is so weak that an honest Senate would not convict. The incidents in Mueller’s report all strike me as Trump expressing his opinion, his concern, and even his anger at what was happening. He arguably honestly believed that Mueller had conflicts of interest, and, given that, favoring his replacement was the President’s Constitutional duty. In no incident have I seen proof that the President used the powers of his office to prevent the investigation from proceeding. With no such overt act, and with no provable underlying crime, the Senate would not convict. If there is no impeachment, the Democrats will make the cloud of obstruction a major issue in 2020. The electorate will function as a jury, as finders of fact, and I think a majority, by their votes, will find Trump not guilty.