If we could have proved a negative ....
19 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag
According to CNBC, Trump’s tweet comes minutes after Mueller reiterated the finding that “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Interesting use of the negative. According to Mueller, if he could have proven a negative he would have said so. But he couldn't prove that something did not happen - where was he when logic was being taught?
It is politics to unseat the president.
Their breed died out.
IF there was no CRIME, there is NO GUILT!
And THAT is the way it should be stated by the White House.
FORCE THE MEDIA to PROVE there was a crime!
FORCE the politicians to PROVE there was a crime.
"Although members of the IRA had contact with individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign, the indictment does not charge any Trump Campaign official or any other U.S. person with participating in the conspiracy. That is because the investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. person who coordinated or communicated with the IRA knew that he or she was speaking with Russian nationals engaged in the criminal conspiracy. The Office therefore determined that such persons did not have the knowledge or criminal purpose required to charge them in the conspiracy to defraud the United States (Count One) or in the separate count alleging a wire- and bank-fraud conspiracy involving the IRA and two individual Russian nationals (Count Two)."
They didn't have sufficient evidence for a charge, so they "determined" it never happened. Yet in Volume 2 they didn't have sufficient evidence for a charge, yet .... maybe.
It is as if Volumes 1 and 2 were written by different people at different times. What I'd like to know is when were they written? I wouldn't be surprised if Volume 1 was written a year or so ago.
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice,” said DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec along with special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a Wednesday evening statement.
“The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.”
Yes and no. On each "key event" they did put down whether what they found met the criteria for an actual charge. None of the them met their own criteria.