Sunday, June 02, 2019


“If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so." These were some of the words tossed around during Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's farewell address to the troops. Before the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and author of the widely redacted report that bears his name, Mister Mueller stood up in front of a bunch of reporters. That little puzzle of a sentence was among the remarks he made. 
For those who hoped that he might open up more fully and clear his mind and ours about any nagging doubts, he added, “Any testimony from this office would not go beyond this report.” That same widely-redacted report that has many clamoring for impeachment of "the president" while others see it as a doctor's note excusing him from any further accusations and PE for a week. 
Then again, there was this additional nugget from Mueller's press briefing to continue to keep the waters as murky as possible: “Under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional,” he said. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
Would you, could you under oath? Would you, could you remove this growth? Would you, could you with a fox? Would you could you with a fox?
Okay, so maybe we'll have to content ourselves with the Report itself. The one that includes this assertion: “The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." Along with that came the list of at least ten instances of ten instances of obstruction of justice, limited primarily by "the president's" own staff being unwilling to carry out his orders. “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.” So sayeth The Report. 
What could be more clear? 
Just about anything. 

No comments: