- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,566
- 2,493
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
When the issue was collusion, Mueller decided that there was not enough evidence to indict (even though he couldn't indict even if the evidence was there).
Mueller says "clearly" that if the situation were that there was not enough evidence to indict on obstruction, he would state that conclusion. The Mueller then says that he cannot make that statement.
Mueller provides a detailed case for any prosecutor to follow of over 180 pages, in 10 sections, with arguments and details. Obviously, this could also be used in impeachment hearings, which may be useful, although there needn't be any vote for impeachment taken.
Mueller was a former prosecutor. In addition, he is to some extent acting like a prosecutor in his report as it pertains to determining whether a crime was or was not committed. In prosecutor parlance, Mueller is saying obstruction of justice charges would be very difficult to prove, the case would be very difficult to win, and there is a high probability of losing. Mueller telegraphed his prosecutorial judgment in rather explicit terms. Mueller telegraphed to "any prosecutor" to beware should they want to prosecute for obstruction. Mueller's report is intentionally ambiguous as to whether Trump did obstruct justice, and the ambiguity is because of the nature of the evidence. Democrats risk political self-immolation in seeking to impeach because of obstruction of justice when Mueller's report is very wishy-washy about obstruction.
Upvote
0