"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Even though producing an indictment was never an option?

1. Producing an indictment was most certainly an option - against anybody but the President.

2. My point still stands - if Mueller believed he had enough evidence for an indictment, he could have said so. But he didn't, and that's really all that matters. Usually, nobody cares what a prosecutor personally thinks about the likelihood somebody committed a crime. The only question for the prosecutor is do you have sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute the case or not? Simple, binary choice.

 

[Allandavid]

1. Producing an indictment was most certainly an option - against anybody but the President.

2. My point still stands - if Mueller believed he had enough evidence for an indictment, he could have said so. But he didn't, and that's really all that matters.

For the umpteenth time....Because Mueller couldn’t bring an indictment of a sitting president, he believed it also unfair/inappropriate to comment on whether such charges would have been laid under normal circumstances. He believed that such action would effectively have pointed the finger at a person who had no chance of defending themselves in a court...

He explained this very clearly...

 

[Allandavid]

Mueller does, however, describe in damning detail all of the obstructive acts perpetrated by Trump in attempting to thwart the investigation...

 

[rambot]

Yes and you remember all those snow flakes right? Trumpophobia Melts SJW Snowflakes

This all went on before Trump had even done anything. Then the anger started which turned to hatred.

Then attacks, attack after attack on Trump, Trump supporters and conservatives in general. We all all racists, bigots, homophobes etc. Etc.

Just wait. My post will be countered with all about how we are snowflakes now because we fight back against the lefts attacks. But remember, nothing had been done or passed and the left went emotionally beserk.

I'm curious about which mainstream attacks were spurious and unwarranted

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

For the umpteenth time....Because Mueller couldn’t bring an indictment of a sitting president, he believed it also unfair/inappropriate to comment on whether such charges would have been laid under normal circumstances.

We're not dealing with a hypothetical here. It's very simple: Is there sufficient evidence to charge the suspect?

If there is, then it is the prosecutor's right and duty to say so, even if the decision will ultimately made by Congress.

If there isn't, then that is that. If you don't have enough evidence, you don't have enough evidence. No ifs, ands, buts, or any qualifiers whatsoever. You. Don't. Have. Enough. Evidence. Period. Full Stop. Further comment is inappropriate.

If you're not going to say, then that defeats the purpose of even having the investigation in the first place.

"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so".

Problem with that:

1. It's almost certainly false. Prosecutors generally don't exonerate suspects.

2. Its truth or falsity aside, for reasons I just gave, it's inappropriate.

Of course, what I have said pertains to an honest investigation. For a Deep State smear campaign, it makes a lot more sense.

 

[USincognito]

I think this is the narrative on fox news opinion shows, maybe brietbart and other openly conservative shows, they don't talk about the other evidence. They make out it is all based on the dossier. If you watch only those shows then you will believe that this is what went down

I've been checking out the Fox evening opinion shows and all of them run a dossier story once a night.

 

[USincognito]

Trump Derangement Syndrome emerges as a public health issue

An Opinion blog from the editor of American Thinker (who isn't a psychiatrist, or a mental health professional of any type)? LOL

 

[KCfromNC]

But Page wasn’t part of the Trump campaign when the dossier, was used in the FISC.

Yeah, it is funny how the talking points change so much depending on the need.

Trump campaign officials end up in jail - but but but that wasn't for things done during the election
Trump campaign officials end up in jail - but but but the government spied on the Trump campaign during the election

I mean, a little consistency from Donald's fan club would go a long way. Oh well, I guess they're doing the best they can given the facts.

 

[KCfromNC]

Barr is no dummy and i dont see him as the type, to make bold statements, without reason.

Given his past behavior defending Donald, I see no reason why anyone would believe this sort of claim.

 

[KCfromNC]

"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

No. Either you have enough evidence to indict or you don't.

You should read the Mueller report. It clearly explains the error in your assertion.

 

[KCfromNC]

1. Producing an indictment was most certainly an option - against anybody but the President.

Yes, including Donald's personal attorney and his campaign manager.

2. My point still stands - if Mueller believed he had enough evidence for an indictment, he could have said so. But he didn't, and that's really all that matters.

The question of whether one person felt he could do something he couldn't do is more important to you than hundreds of pages of evidence? Why?

 

[trunks2k]

2. My point still stands - if Mueller believed he had enough evidence for an indictment, he could have said so. But he didn't, and that's really all that matters.

He COULD have appointed himself judge jury and executioner and decided to publicly flog Trump. But he didn't. He COULD have stated that Trump is a saint and did nothing at all wrong and everyone who says otherwise is a liar. He COULD have done all sorts of things.

What he COULD have done is not relevant to what he thinks he should do. He has spelled out his position pretty clearly - He does not think it is appropriate for him to claim that a Trump committed a crime since his office is not going to indict a sitting president, and it's up to congress to deal with the presented evidence and make a judgement on that.

 

[bhsmte]

Given his past behavior defending Donald, I see no reason why anyone would believe this sort of claim.

Thats cool.

 

[bhsmte]

Even if he did have something to go on it was unprofessional.
The AG should be more serious and careful, careful with words and public accusations.

Making a public accusation "I think spying went on" In terms of a personal "I think", rather than as a factual statement. Use of a loaded word "spying" and not backing that up with any reasoning. He is just getting tongues wagging, this was a political stunt, not the act of an AG.
Barr is too smart to do this by accident. He knows better.
Therefore he is compromised.

Ok, your opinion, which you are entitled to.

 

[bhsmte]

Mueller does, however, describe in damning detail all of the obstructive acts perpetrated by Trump in attempting to thwart the investigation...

Agree, he does describe in detail.

A good argument could be made, that obstruction occured and it is in the dems hands in the house, to decide what to do.

Would also like to see mueller under oath and being cross examined, like any investigator faces when they gather evidence against someone. Whole nother deal though.

 

[KCfromNC]

Would also like to see mueller under oath and being cross examined, like any investigator faces when they gather evidence against someone. Whole nother deal though.

I continue to be impressed with the number of excuses I read for ignoring the obvious conclusion from the evidence the Mueller report.

 

[bhsmte]

I continue to be impressed with the number of excuses I read for ignoring the obvious conclusion from the evidence the Mueller report.

You really need to stop selectively reading my posts. That is, if you want an accurate view.

 

[KCfromNC]

You really need to stop selectively reading my posts. That is, if you want an accurate view.

The far-right talking points draw my attention for some reason.

 

[bhsmte]

The far-right talking points draw my attention for some reason.

LOL.

Since i am an independent and didnt vote for trump or clinton, maybe i am not blinded by personal ideology.

It strikes me though, that you did not quote the part of my post, that stated a good argument could be made, that obstruction occured.

I do think there is much more to this story though and my focus is on the entire story and not some overwhelming desire, to see one thing happen. If wanting an investigator who gathered evidence to be cross examined is over the top for you, so be it.

 

[rjs330]

For the umpteenth time....Because Mueller couldn’t bring an indictment of a sitting president, he believed it also unfair/inappropriate to comment on whether such charges would have been laid under normal circumstances. He believed that such action would effectively have pointed the finger at a person who had no chance of defending themselves in a court...

He explained this very clearly...

You guys keep missing the point. The point isn't that Mueller could have indicted the president. He could have said the president committed a crime. He didn't.