[Ed. – It’s the same ‘evidentiary standard’ they used in the case of Brett Kavanaugh.]
I’m sorry to be a broken record on this, but this line from Robert Mueller infuriates me:
“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
That’s not how it works in America. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed, they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”
I understand that Mueller was in an odd position. I understand, too, that this wasn’t a criminal trial. But I don’t think those norms are rendered any less important by those facts. By asking the executive to investigate itself, it was guaranteed — yes, guaranteed — that we’d have a fight over “obstruction of justice.” For the architect of that investigation to keep saying “We aren’t exonerating our target” is extraordinary. Innocence is the default position in this country.
Continue reading →