Earlier today, Robert Mueller delivered his first public statement on his investigation into Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. It’s unlikely to change many people’s minds … Trump’s supporters are still standing by him and his detractors are still calling for his head on a pike. In other words, we can expect more of the same through the 2020 election season.
It does seem fair to ask, though, what exactly Mueller was thinking when he said this:
"If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so." Mueller
— David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) May 29, 2019
He appears to have this a little backwards, no?
Is this how it works? Isn't it the other way around? You look for evidence that a crime was committed, and if you don't find it you say "we didn't find any." You don't look for evidence that it wasn't and then say, "we couldn't find evidence of innocence." https://t.co/nkMeI2O2BA
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) May 29, 2019
The very last word I would use to describe Trump would be 'innocent'.
— Andrew Loder (@aloder) May 29, 2019
Doesn't really matter what words you'd use. Innocence is the default position.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) May 29, 2019
At least it’s supposed to be.
"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so." That is not the standard of a prosecutor. Prosecutors exist to determine whether someone committed a chargeable offense, not whether they are exonerated of charges.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) May 29, 2019
Mueller could say “we believe a crime was committed, but do not believe that crime can be charged”
But no-
He’s not saying that because he would then have to identify the specific crime/act to be charged, which would open up his flimsy legal rationale to annihilation
— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) May 29, 2019
Recommended
Translation: "My statement allows those who want him to be guilty to use it as an election year bludgeon regardless of any evidence I may or may not have found. Evidence is beside the point, especially with the legal fig leaf of an inability to indict."
— Potemkin Coffee Shop (@IggyBeeBop) May 29, 2019
Interesting new take on the justice system. "Hey, we didn't find evidence that you're NOT a mass murderer."
— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) May 29, 2019
So guilty until proven innocent?
— Fake Noose (@LetItBurnUSA) May 29, 2019
It's an interesting twist to our legal system.
— T Price (@70s_Child) May 29, 2019
It's a direct attack on some of the pillars of our system of justice, but don't you dare say so because Orange Man bad.
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) May 29, 2019
People gotta start stretching before they reach like this
— Adam Dubravetz (@atomduby) May 29, 2019