Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
![wink](https://theologyweb.com/campus/core/images/smilies/wink.gif)
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.
Comment