The Mueller Report

[carpedm9587]

You think it is a prosecutor's job to exonerate someone who was never charged with a crime? Please explain your reasoning.

I think you shouldn't cherry pick quotes. Come on, MM - your cherry picking was blatant. At least you can fess up and acknowledge it.

As for your question, I think it is common practice for DAs to parse their cases into several groups:

1) Belief there is guilt and there is adequate evidence to indict and convict
2) Belief there is guilt and there is inadequate evidence to indict and/or convict
3) Belief there is no guilt

They tend to go after #1, but may offer a deal depending on the situation. They tend to try to make deals with #2, or simply refuse to indict. They obviously do not indict #3. That is their role. When it's #2, what they do and do not say publicly depends entirely on the situation. In this case, Mueller made his report to the AG. For him to note in that report that they did not have adequate evidence to indict, but there was too much evidence to put Trump in category #3 is a perfectly reasonable ting for an investigator to report to the AG. Whether or not there ever will be adequate evidence depends on whether or not investigations continue, and whether or not Trump or any of his group left evidence around that Mueller did NOT find. I find the latter doubtful for what was within scope of the mandate of the special counsel, but not so doubtful for all of the tangential things that have since emerged.

[Mountain Man]

I think you shouldn't cherry pick quotes. Come on, MM - your cherry picking was blatant. At least you can fess up and acknowledge it.

As for your question, I think it is common practice for DAs to parse their cases into several groups:

1) Belief there is guilt and there is adequate evidence to indict and convict
2) Belief there is guilt and there is inadequate evidence to indict and/or convict
3) Belief there is no guilt

They tend to go after #1, but may offer a deal depending on the situation. They tend to try to make deals with #2, or simply refuse to indict. They obviously do not indict #3. That is their role. When it's #2, what they do and do not say publicly depends entirely on the situation. In this case, Mueller made his report to the AG. For him to note in that report that they did not have adequate evidence to indict, but there was too much evidence to put Trump in category #3 is a perfectly reasonable ting for an investigator to report to the AG. Whether or not there ever will be adequate evidence depends on whether or not investigations continue, and whether or not Trump or any of his group left evidence around that Mueller did NOT find. I find the latter doubtful for what was within scope of the mandate of the special counsel, but not so doubtful for all of the tangential things that have since emerged.

A typically long-winded way of saying, "No, it is not a prosecutor's job to exonerate someone who was never charged with a crime."



What's worse for you is that Attorney General Barr, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and other ranking members of the Department of Justice affirmed Mueller's assessment that there is no compelling reason to charge President Trump.

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

[...]

Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

[carpedm9587]

A typically long-winded way of saying, "No, it is not a prosecutor's job to exonerate someone who was never charged with a crime."

Claiming I said something I didn't say doesn't change what I actually said...

What's worse for you is that Attorney General Barr, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and other ranking members of the Department of Justice affirmed Mueller's assessment that there is no compelling reason to charge President Trump.

A point I have not disagreed with at any point. Mueller himself says there is not enough evidence to indict.

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

[...]

Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

None of which I've disagreed with at any point. There is not enough evidence to indict. There is too much evidence to exonerate. It's pretty simple.

P.S. And I note you still did not acknowledge your cherry picking...

[Mountain Man]

There is not enough evidence to indict. There is too much evidence to exonerate.

[carpedm9587]

That doesn't make any sense.

That you don't understand it (or accept it) does not reduce its rational basis, MM. I think you will find pretty much any DA or lawyer will tell you that's how it works.

This gets back to an example I gave earlier where you're arguing with your wife, and you say, "You haven't done anything wrong, but I still won't forgive you!"

I have given up correcting your bad analogies. Instead of responding rationally, you usually just toss in a mocking emoji and hand-wave away the explanation, so it's largely a waste of my time.

If there is not enough evidence to indict, which is another way of saying that there is not evidence to prove that a crime was even committed, then there is no need for exoneration.

You have been to a court of law, right? You realize that the burden is to provide evidence that will convince a jury or judge "beyond a reasonable doubt." When a DA does not believe they have that amount of evidence, they simply don't indict. That doesn't mean the person "didn't do it." It means it cannot be proven that they did it.

Any parent would immediately recognize the difference. Dad goes to his wallet and finds $20 missing. He knows it's missing. He put that $20 bill in there yesterday and it's gone now. But both boys say "I didn't do it." One has a history of taking things when they want them. The other does not. The one with the history has a bag of junk food they didn't have before, but they explain they got the money from a friend. Dad knows what happened - but proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

And quoting Chris Christie, a politician, when you are complaining that the whole thing is political, is a very odd choice. Sorry - I disagree with Mr. Christie AND you. Legally, Mr. Trump remains innocent. He will be legally innocent until (and if) enough evidence is found and he is convicted. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, which is what Mr. Mueller was reporting to his boss in his report. Remember the context, MM - Mueller is writing a report for the AG (or his deputy) who appointed him. He is basically telling him, "there's smoke here, but I could not find enough evidence to indict and convict." It's not complicated.

What happened AFTER the report was submitted is where the politics, IMO, start. I have been impressed by Mueller and how he comported himself. He never rose to Trump's bait. Only once do I recall them making a statement, and it was to correct a message attributed to them. Every piece of information I read in public about the investigation was traced to a public filing with a court, or from reporters camping outside the offices and noting the comings and goings, not from the investigation itself. All-in-all, Mueller was a good choice who took all of the garbage tossed his way and simply let it slide off his back while he focused on doing his job. Kudos to him.

[Mountain Man]

When a DA does not believe they have that amount of evidence, they simply don't indict. That doesn't mean the person "didn't do it." It means it cannot be proven that they did it.

When Mueller says "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime", and Barr, Rosenstein, and the rest of the Department of Justice concur with Mueller, saying that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense", this isn't saying, "We know someone obstructed justice, we just can't prove it was the President," it's saying, "The evidence doesn't establish that any crime was committed at all."

I disagree with Mr. Christie...

Right, and you know more about the law and the role of a prosecutor than someone who's an actual expert in the field.

[carpedm9587]

When Mueller says "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime", and Barr, Rosenstein, and the rest of the Department of Justice concur with Mueller, saying that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense", this isn't saying, "We know someone obstructed justice, we just can't prove it was the President," it's saying, "The evidence doesn't establish that any crime was committed at all."

You do seem to love to cherry pick that quote. Ignoring the second half doesn't make it go away, MM. And handwaving it as "political" doesn't make it go away either.

Right, and you know more about the law and the role of a prosecutor than someone who's an actual expert in the field.

Actually - no. But when I am making a case about things that are legal vs. political, I don't usually quote a politician.

[oxmixmudd]

... it's saying, "The evidence doesn't establish that any crime was committed at all."

Absolutely false. Mueller explicitly says this:

Source: Mueller

it also does not exonerate him

© Copyright Original Source

There is a lot of doubt left in Mueller's actual quote. Obstruction is a crime OF INTENT. The actual actions are often legal if they do not constitute obstruction.

What Mueller is saying is that there is a good bit of evidence that points to the president doing things that would be wrong if the intent was obstruction, but not enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt actual criminal intent.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

What Mueller is saying is that there is a good bit of evidence that points to the president doing things that would be wrong if the intent was obstruction, but not enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt actual criminal intent.

Right... the evidence doesn't establish that any crime was committed at all.

[carpedm9587]

Right... the evidence doesn't establish that any crime was committed at all.

As has been previously noted, the evidence is not sufficient to prove a criminal act beyond a reasonable doubt. That has been agreed to from the outset. The report does not say "Trump did not act criminally." Indeed, Mueller explicitly said that the report... "...does not exonerate him."

I now you'd like to wave that away, and conveniently keep dropping it in your quotes - but as was previously noted - that doesn't make it go away.

Now - since I am well into repeating myself, I'll leave the last word to you.

[Mountain Man]

As has been previously noted, the evidence is not sufficient to prove a criminal act beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right... the evidence doesn't establish that any crime was committed at all.

[Cow Poke]

Now - since I am well into repeating myself, I'll leave the last word to you.

We should have a separate thread on these little declarations.

[Sparko]

Absolutely false. Mueller explicitly says this:

Source: Mueller

it also does not exonerate him

© Copyright Original Source

There is a lot of doubt left in Mueller's actual quote. Obstruction is a crime OF INTENT. The actual actions are often legal if they do not constitute obstruction.

What Mueller is saying is that there is a good bit of evidence that points to the president doing things that would be wrong if the intent was obstruction, but not enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt actual criminal intent.


Jim

Like I said about a gazillion pages ago, you can't exonerate someone if they haven't even been charged or indicted. People including Trump are throwing out a legal term with no idea what it even means. The proper word should be "vindicated" because at the end of the day, the report supports what Trump has been saying all along, that he did not collude with the Russians.

And you don't have to have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" to charge someone. That is to convict someone. The police can charge you with very little evidence if they want to, but if they expect to get a guilty verdict they have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. So if Mueller did think there was any actual evidence against Trump, he could have suggested an indictment. He didn't.

[carpedm9587]

We should have a separate thread on these little declarations.

Feel free to start one. I've given up starting threads for lent!

[oxmixmudd]

Like I said about a gazillion pages ago, you can't exonerate someone if they haven't even been charged or indicted. People including Trump are throwing out a legal term with no idea what it even means. The proper word should be "vindicated" because at the end of the day, the report supports what Trump has been saying all along, that he did not collude with the Russians.

And as I pointed out earlier, it does the exact opposite. But there was nothing about how they cooperated with the Russian interference that was explicit, and thus no crime was committed, and likely no explicit conspiracy to cooperate with them on that element of the election.

And you don't have to have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" to charge someone. That is to convict someone. The police can charge you with very little evidence if they want to, but if they expect to get a guilty verdict they have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. So if Mueller did think there was any actual evidence against Trump, he could have suggested an indictment. He didn't.

In this case there has to be clear evidence of intent to define the actions as a crime. So it is more complicated in this case than just having evidence of an action that is criminal.

Obstruction is a crime of intent. There is a lot of evidence Trump acted in ways that ARE obstruction IF one has enough evidence to show clear intent. Mueller did not have that kind of clear cut evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt the intent of the act, and without that he can't classify his actions as crimes. So in this case, to even think about some sort of indictment or recommendation to indict, there has to be very, very strong evidence addressing the issue of intent.

Jim