An investigation that was to be fact-based is being made into political theater. The stars are the politicians, the goal is to get rid of an opposition political figure whatever it takes, and the foil, the raw material, for the present is Mueller.
(The one thing that I heard Mueller say that I think deserves comment in the hour that I listened wasn't even straightforward. He concluded he couldn't indict a sitting president. However, many a prosecutor decides that the target is guilty of a crime and could be indicted however declines to prosecute for all sorts of reasons--cost, politics, mercy, statute of limitations, lack of jurisdiction, inadmissibility or even lack of evidence, or even just what's the point when the crime would give a 6 month sentence but the guy's unlikely to live 7 months because he's 93 and mostly dead from cancer or there'd be a $50k fine but the family of 8 with the grandmother serving as guardian is already on welfare? In other words, the prosecutor's conclusion of guilt is separate from considering the evidence is separate from the decision to indict. They are three logically, legally, categorially distinct things.
(When directly asked if he could have said, "You know, I think Trump did obstruct justice and could be indicted, but policy says I can't indict so I won't" he just said, "Sitting presidents under OLC guidance cannot be prosecuted." If not for the fact that legal discussions don't abide by the normal rules of conversational implicature, the implicature would be that Mueller denied that there is prosecutorial discretion available in this case. (Of course, he originally cited the OLC guidance/DOJ policy but also "fairness", but I'm not going to touch that last bit.) )
= new reply since forum marked as read
