Ok word police what now

[PaulS]

If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime,” Mr. Mueller said, “we would have said so.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime,” Mr. Mueller said, “we would have said so.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but that’s not how it works. they aren’t charged with proving innocence. he is already presumed innocent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime,” Mr. Mueller said, “we would have said so.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they had evidence that he clearly did commit a crime, they could have, and should have, said so. The notion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, does not prevent saying that he clearly committed a crime.

Not saying one or the other is implying that the evidence is not sufficient to convict. Ergo, Barr made the correct call in regards to the investigation.

Congress can impeach even if the investigation concludes that the evidence is not sufficient to indict. That's a separate issue.

The same reasoning can be applied to the first part of the investigation--conspiracy. If the evidence clearly proved that he conspired with Russia, they should have said so even if the President could not be indicted. Otherwise, there would be no point to the investigation.

Mueller and his team clearly avoided making a conclusion re obstruction. The point of investigating was to make a conclusion, not to waffle. Barr cleaned up the mess that Mueller made re obstruction.

The question is why did Mueller avoid the obvious conclusion. Claiming that it would not be fair to charge Trump if he could not be indicted is nonsense. It is just as unfair to leave it hanging with the strong odor of implying that Trump is guilty as it is to say that Trump is actually guilty.

And, again, the same reasoning goes to the conspiracy aspect. If there was evidence that Trump clearly conspired, there would have been the same unnecessary "dilemma"--implying rather than stating. That makes the whole process an exercise in futility that should not have been allowed to waste our time and money.

Mueller should have concluded one way or the other. The fact that he didn't implies something more sinister, in my opinion, than Trump trying to stop an attempt to destroy him when he knew that he didn't conspire with the Russians. Maybe Barr's investigation can uncover why Mueller waffled, or even why there was an investigation without evidence that a crime was committed in the first place.