Listening to the NYT Daily podcast about Mueller was unsettling today.

[Kablooie]

Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2019, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

They said the the Mueller report will be one of three things.

1. Evidence of Trump breaking the law is found.
2. No evidence of Trump breaking the law is found
3. No evidence of Trump breaking the law is found with an explanation. (Which is what Comey did when announcing the email investigation.)

They think #3 is unlikely which leaves us with a simple evidence or no evidence.

I'm uneasy because to find a president guilty would certainly require rock solid, concrete evidence that Trump deliberately conspired with Russians to affect the election or actively attempted to obstruct justice.

We've seen plenty of things Trump has said or done that appear to implicate him but I'm not sure they alone would stand up to the legal standard of criminality for a president. I also doubt that statements from his minions would be enough to convict him. There would have to be hard, incontrovertible documentation. With Nixon it wasn't until they found tapes of his direct involvement that convinced Republicans to turn on him.

Trump has been active in shady dealings his whole life and has never been caught which indicates a system designed to protect him personally. Cohen said that Trump never gives orders directly, which insulates him from involvement, from a legal perspective. I worry that his whole operation is designed with that aim so there won't be any absolute, hard evidence of his involvement. There may be rooms filled with smoke but no final smoking gun with his fingerprints on it.

If that is so the result will be a simple "no evidence" in spite of the voluminous circumstantial evidence that he is guilty. To the general public, who don't follow every twist and turn, "no evidence" will be the end of it. Trump is not guilty.
An impeachment brought after a "no evidence"finding would just be handing ammunition to Republicans supporting the "witch hunt" scenario.

The House would continue their investigations and the Trump company's illegal doings and other House findings could create charges but it's been shown that Republicans accept that with a yawn so it wouldn't materially affect the governance of the country.

I'm not convinced that this will end the way we know it should and it could empower Trump even further if he is found not guilty.

[FakeNoose]

1. The Mueller report will present the evidence found in their investigation

It won't present a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict, that's not Mueller's job.

Mueller is the investigator not the judge or jury. Maybe eventually he'll be asked to prosecute Chump, but I don't think so. I believe Mueller will want to retire and turn the reins over to younger members of his team if it goes to trial. If this goes as many of us believe it will, no indictments will be made against Chump until after he leaves office. In the meantime there will be trials for Jared, Don Jr., and (maybe) Eric as well as several other participants from the 2016 campaign.

If Congress moves forward with impeachment proceedings, Mueller would not likely be part of it. He would agree to testify if asked, but I don't believe Mueller would take part in the impeachment like Ken Starr did against Bill Clinton.

Does anybody else see this differently?

[justhanginon]

2. Is it the job of the Mueller report to make an actual

finding of guilty or not guilty. I was under the impression that they were to do an investigation and then report their findings to the appropriate aurhorities and congress, not actually pass judgement.

[Cattledog]

3. The word "guilty" or "not guilty" will never be in the report.

You can only be found guilty by a court or jury.