Back to more important things.
That is the summary of Trump Attorney General William Barr. The only quoted portion attributed to Mueller is in the last clause of the last sentence. The rest of it is the A.G.'s interpretation. The quoted portion from Mueller is defensible, if barely. All of us start out innocent until proven guilty. Now, that is the standard for conviction by a jury in trial. Prosecutors do not have to presume us innocent. Overwhelmingly, they presume us guilty based on their exercise of prosecutorial discretion to accuse us of criminal conduct. The prosecutor's standard for charging someone is slightly different. They must subjectively believe he who he accuses committed the crime and he must make an objective determination that a reasonable jury could convict beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence that he, the prosecutor, has amassed. If the prosecutor does not have the subjective faith than he, personally, must decline to prosecute the case in court. The case gets reassigned to a prosecutor who does believe. But the prosecutor must also meet the objective test regardless of subjective belief or lack of belief. Mueller writing "that he does not conclude that the President committed a crime" sounds like the objective test and that, in my judgment is where it should have been left. There is no legal point in appending "it also does not exonerate him." Prosecutors do not exonerate. They determine either, through both tests prosecutorial crimes which they believe in and which have a reasonable chance of being sustained by a jury at trial were committed, or they write, "evidence insufficient." I am reluctant to conclude that Robert Mueller III, august and above reproach, has put out a non sequitur worthy of lesser life forms like the prosecutors in the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office but that is what Mueller says. I will reserve further fast and furious fire until and if we ever get the full context of Mueller's report on this count. However, that lone quoted clause is not encouraging that my fire will be held. From an abundance of caution and iron will against an eruption of bile and F-bombs I do not address A.G. Barr's summary.
The obstruction charge is also not the Big Enchilada, it is the little limp peepy of the investigation. Trump has been cleared of conspiracy and cooperation with Russian interference in the 2016 election. How Robert Mueller did that I do not know, I am shocked, I have seen filed, and have filed myself charges as a prosecutor based on infinitely less evidence than what Mueller had on conspiracy with Russia, but but I do defer to Mueller on that immeasurably more serious charge. Any plausible case for impeachment had to be founded on the Big Enchilada, not the little limp peepy. On any charge worth caring about Trump is exonerated in my opinion. This pending receipt of further information. I remain locked and loaded.
