Exoneration is meaningless. You are either charged with a crime or your not charged with a crime. In the case of a murder investigation evidence is collected and someone is either charged or not charged. The prosecutor doesn’t spend endless hours explicitly exonerating all of those that he was investigating. They are either charged or they aren’t. If they aren’t charged, they are presumed innocent. And even if they are charged, they are presumed innocent unless found guilty in a court of law.
In the case of Trump and his associates, Mueller chose not to charge them with collusion or with obstruction. From a criminal perspective that ends it. Now politics is another whole animal.
Mueller isn’t a prosecutor. The Mueller investigation wasn’t a trial. Mueller is an investigator who wrote a report. A report that doesn’t clearly say he should be charged of a crime, but also states he can’t be exonerated.
The Mueller report “did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”. So, unless you can show that the only interference by the Russians in our election was the hacking of the DNC, their conclusion goes beyond just the hacking.
So- Trump used McGahn as a go-between to remind Flynn that Trump was fond of him in an attempt to curb his cooperation. Mueller got ahold of that voicemail (stupid idea) and then used it to turn McGahn. Fascinating.
I never implied Mueller’s investigation was a trial, any more than a prosecutor’s murder investigation is a trial. Mueller has both the power to bring criminal charges and to prosecute. In the case of the President and his team, he chose to do neither.
The special counsel has the powers of a US attorney - meaning he can subpoena records and bring criminal charges. And he has done so.
He can also prosecute anyone who interferes in his investigation through crimes including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.
Section C of the letter authorizing Mueller gives him authority to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation.
He officially had the authority of a prosecutor.
That is not relevant to the statement that Mueller could not conclude that Trump committed a crime. It is always possible to conclude that someone committed a crime but could not be indicted, either because they are President, or due to the statute of limitations etc.
Or that they committed a crime but no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.
Mueller doesn’t “charge” people. He’s an investigator.
If you guys want to hang your hat on a report that said was unable to exonerate Trump & Co, knock yourselves out. Saying the report clears them of wrongdoing is wrong. In fact the report clearly states the opposite.
Also, “innocent until proven guilty” refers to a trial in which the burden of proof is on the prosecution. This wasn’t a trial.
Sure he did. He also deferred formally bringing charges against the president because he was unsure of the legality of it. That again does not mean the president was exonerated. As he expressly stated.
Mueller felt a sitting president could not be indicted. Indictments against others were made. He deferred indicting a sitting president because he did not feel he had the power to do so. Hard to be a prosecutor in the case of Trump if you feel you can’t prosecute.
