Count Machuki wrote:Still Baron wrote:Sadly I haven’t had the free time to write out my reaction Barr’s letter, and I fear that the Dems are losing the messenging war on this. Here’s a start, which makes a point or three I wanted to make:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-b ... -collusionThis language suggests that Mueller’s report viewed the conduct through the lens of a criminal investigative process—that is, whether the evidence met the Department of Justice standards for prosecution, including the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to violate the law.
This is sort of what I've been thinking recently. That Mueller was such a stickler that he didn't make a recommendation to prosecute cause he was only 90-odd percent there, not 100 percent. And that he trusted the system to sort out the rest. Of course, if the system is being gamed by the subject of the investigation, well...
I don't know, it's tough for a layman. My law knowledge isn't nearly strong enough to have a really informed opinion.
Thanks for the link.
Preet Bharara says it better than I did:
Preet Bharara wrote:I suspect that Mueller believed the buck shouldn’t stop with him or the special counsel’s office. He understands that there’s another constitutionally prescribed mechanism for addressing bad conduct on the part of the president, namely Congress. But even though he didn’t make a decision to charge, it seems unquestionable that he discovered some bad conduct.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18277312/ ... et-bharara
This is worth a read.