I think the right questions would produce some useful answers.
Did you find evidence that members of the Trump campaign met with Russian government cut-outs to get help for the campaign?
The answer is surely ‘yes’ — evidence isn’t proof — and leads to great followup questions. E.g. Describe that evidence.
Similarly, Did you find evidence of attempts to obstruct either the DOJ or Congressional investigation into these matters?
Timex
3233
No, I don’t think that is true.
He IS able to make a judgement about whether evidence suggests that a crime has occurred. That is a critical aspect of his job. And indeed, this is part of what would be required to support a potential decision that no crime had been committed.
Making that assessment is not the same as making the assessment that Trump has committed a crime, which is not possible for the reasons previously described.
Assessing individual evidence to say, “This constitutes evidence of a crime” is below the level of judgement about whether or not someone should be indicted. It’s merely a judgement that MUST have already been conducted, otherwise Mueller would not have been able to say, “If we determined that no crime was committed, we would say so.” Without that assessment of individual evidence, no such determination could have been made in either direction.
I’m pretty sure that asking the question in this manner gives Mueller an opportunity to state that evidence exists that a crime was committed. That’s different from saying that ENOUGH evidence exists to indict the President, if he weren’t the president. The latter would likely be a bridge too far, but I think that the former is something that fits within Mueller’s view of legal ethics.
Unlike Barr, Mueller has no allegiance to Trump. He will not step out of his lane to protect Trump. He’s only beholden to his code of conduct.
I’m having a hard time finding legal experts who agree with Mueller’s theory that, in light of the injunction against indicting a President, one is not permitted to accuse a President. Even Barr seems to disagree with that one, though I’ll grant that Barr’s view might be disingenuous as it serves his purpose to disagree.
JoshL
3235
I can’t point out any flaws in your argument, but nonetheless, when (if) Mueller testifies to Congress, and they ask him that question, he’ll say “the evidence I uncovered is detailed in my report”. And that’s all he’ll say. I will bet you 10 internet points!
Menzo
3237
Yeah, I’ll put 10,000 gold down on Mueller not adding anything to his written report as well.
Regarding the McSweeny’s and Washington Post pieces linked above, maybe Pelosi’s strategy is to wait until the outrage about the need to impeach reaches such a fever pitch that she can say, “Well, we weren’t going to go there but the public demanded it.”
Timex
3239
I’m pretty sure that this is exactly her strategy, and it’s correct.
I hope so, but last night she advanced some crazy argument to the effect that, should impeachment fail, it would foreclose the option of indicting him after he left office.
Even that works, if you’re prepared for it. The first follow up question you ask is, did you find that so-and-so offered to meet with Trump campaign and provide them with dirt on Hillary? He responds with ‘yes’. You ask did they respond positively? He response with ‘yes’. You use the question and answer to point to every piece of evidence and have Mueller affirm it. You just need good questioners who are prepared.
Sharpe
3242
I think the bottom line is that Mueller will willingly describe every single dot in clear detail if asked but he adamantly will NOT connect the dots. In his view that is not his job; it is congress’ job. (My view is that connecting the dots is BOTH his job AND Congress’ job.) Either way, Congress is going to have to do the heavy lifting.
I have reached the view that high quality questioning of Mueller can help establish the elements of the case, and also highlight avenues of additional investigation, so it should go forward. We just shouldn’t expect him to carry the burden of proof or to make any legal conclusions.
Agree, and this is very well put.
I think you’re spot on. It’s a gamble, as enough of the public may never get there. On the flipside, I’d also argue the threat of impeachment isn’t really so much about impeachment as it’s about making sure he’s not in office come 2021 at the latest, one way or the other. Pelosi feels ramming through an impeachment right now would increase his odds of getting re-elected, and we all know there’s zero chance of him getting removed because of the Senate.
As much as we’d personally love to see it happen, right now we’re dealing with a broken system and have to act accordingly. Anybody play youth league baseball? Your right fielder is picking dandelions, your first baseman is goofing around and talking to his friends in the stands, half the team forgot their gloves, and your catcher is just calling fastballs down the middle of the plate.
This is where we can see a weakness in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; sometimes we’re just a bunch of nihilistic, trolling assholes.
I totally get this; could you imagine the political firestorm this would create? Nobody’s DOJ would want to touch it with a 10’ pole. While it wouldn’t be double jeopardy, it would sure feel that way to the public and could very well poison the re-electability of everyone involved and indirectly put the GOP right back into office
Again; broken system.
Would that firestorm be worse than saying, in effect, any President whose party holds 34 Senate seats is effectively entirely immune from the law?
That aside, Trump will not be indicted for obstruction or anything else by the DOJ after he leaves office whether he is unsuccessfully impeached or not. So saying we can’t impeach because that forecloses an indictment is disingenuous.
Also, too, Barr is not kidding. They fully intend to go after FBI leadership on the grounds that they illegally spied on the Trump campaign.
It would sure be nice if more people seemed to care about it now, but not yet.
Sure makes the answer to Harris’s question to him plain as day, right? Barr is too much of a gutless sniveling partisan to actually answer the question, though.
vyshka
3249
Just bring in Kamala Harris to do the questioning.
