We know that Mueller didn't indict Trump.
We know that Mueller said that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia.
We know that Mueller didn't find one instance of obstruction; the report talks about things that might be obstruction but it doesn't say that any were obstruction.
Yet the NYT is saying that Trump was't exonerated.
In a sense they're right; when there is no evidence of a crime it's impossible to exonerate anyone.
If someone were to say that Beto O'Rourke murdered his parents he couldn't be exonerated, and he wouldn't need to be exonerated, because there has been no credible accusation that he did murder his parents.
Similarly Trump doesn't need, and in fact can't be, exonerated for something that didn't happen; collusion with Russia.
As to obstruction Mueller didn't cite a single example. Rather in a decidedly political and dishonest way he cited things that might be obstruction. As a prosecutor Mueller's job is to seek out the facts not advance possible things that he can't show to be true. Mueller didn't cite any actual legal reasoning that would show that any of the events he cited as obstruction were in fact illegal acts.
In fact all the things that Mueller cites are nothing more than an innocent man trying to end a partisan witch hunt aimed at nullifying the 2016 election.
It's a matter of fact that Trump didn't fire Mueller or even replace him.
It's a fact that Trump at no point exercise privilege claims and provided Mueller with unlimited access to documents while allowing senior aides to testify.
That's why Mueller never says that any of the things that the Democrats are now talking about were obstruction. He only said that perhaps someone somewhere might think they were obstruction.
Which is basically Mueller's dishonest attempt to criminalize Trump defending himself. In Mueller's world Republicans should just sit back and do nothing while dishonest men like Mueller smear their reputation through bogus investigations and unending inaccurate leaks.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment