LogFAQs > #934031225

ZaziGuado posted...

Something I heard throughout the impeachment trial from Republicans that didn't get much push back was that the Mueller report proved that the Russian collusion was a hoax. However, my understanding of the conclusions from the Mueller report was that wasn't true.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be because I never poured over the Mueller report, the conclusion was that there was no direct evidence of collusion, but there is still uncertainty due potential obstruction of justice and that there IS evidence that the Trump campaign was welcoming of Russian influence. Mueller didn't make a determination of guilt or crime because a sitting President cannot be charged and instead left it up to Congress to make that decision (which being Republican controlled had no chance of happening). Mueller definitively said, however, that he in no way exonerated Trump.

Did I get that all straight? And if so, why was there little push back when this claim was repeatedly made?

Yes, you are correct. Basically, Mueller concluded that he did not have the authority to charge the President and therefore, as a responsible, ethical, prosecutor he refused to issue an opinion one way or the other on that issue.

The Democrats sort of set themselves up for this though. They framed the Mueller investigation as an investigation of Trump for years, until the public thought that that is what it was. But Mueller never said that Trump was a target of his investigation, which did charge many other people.

Now, if a person is a target of an investigation, the prosecutor basically never will conclude that the person is innocent. They conclude that they do not have the evidence to convict and therefore do not file charges. Thus, if Mueller was actually investigating Trump, and followed usual protocol, his language of saying he cannot conclude that Trump committed any wrongdoing is the same as a prosecutor would use to "exonerate" someone. Legally there's no difference between the two coming from a prosecutor, since a prosecutor lacks the power of a trial jury to find someone permanently not guilty even if new evidence arises later.

So when Mueller came out with his report, the Democrats should have been prepared and said that he didn't conclude anything about Trump because he lacked the authority to do so. They did try, but they couldn't credibly do it because they had spent the previous 2 years talking about how Mueller was investigating Trump.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!