Mueller's Retort
I read part of this article just now and I had a flashback to an earlier opinion I had presented.
Barr's admission that the Special Counsel's Office can't actually prosecute a sitting president leads to some pretty pointed questions about his stance on other things.
For instance, since both parties seem to rather easily agree that prosecuting was never an option. And since the investigation was not opened specifically to investigate whether or not President Trump should be prosecuted it seems fallacious to imply that the Special Counsel's Office should have investigated far enough to reach a determination on whether or not they would have prosecuted where it not for the fact that they all know that they couldn't.
This is tantamount to asking a publicly funded research team why they didn't investigate the possible conclusions of known impossible outcomes. Like... why didn't NASA waste tax payer money investigating options for reaching the moon without accounting for gravity. We cannot remove gravity, therefore is makes no sense to investigate outcomes which ignore this.
Similarly, since we can all agree that the Mueller couldn't actually prosecute a sitting President, why would he bother playing make believe and pursuing the investigation to those ends?
Furthermore... it is concerning to my why Barr would even be making these arguments publicly. He has basically stated that he believes rendering this decision was a reasonable expectation of what he was contracted to do. Or put another way, in a roundabout way, he has accused Mueller of defrauding the government and tax payer.
If he legitimately believed that, given the visibility of the case and potential impacts on undermining the government and presidency, they really should be prosecuting Mueller. Not slandering him publicly.
The only reason (in my opinion) not to do so is the knowledge that you're talking out your ass and such a trial would never prevail.
But then, why provoke? It is also seems likely that Mueller believes Trump would be prosecutable were it not for the fact that he is still a sitting President. This seems likely because if Mueller agreed with Barr there would be no reason to try clarify his stance. But, furthermore, if Mueller felt the evidence didn't lean one way or another, it would be best to err on the side of presuming innocence.
Frankly, I suspect Mueller would be crossing a legal line if he tried to draw a verdict. He doesn't actually have the authority to render a verdict. This isn't a trial and he isn't the judge. As with all other cases that came out of this, all he has the authority to do is decide whether or not to begin prosecuting. Which, he can't actually do against Trump at present.
Given the authority of his office, if he renders an opinion, he could likely be seen as abusing his authority and may even be susceptible to defamation, libel or slander suits. And worse, because he can't prosecute Trump, he would actually be legally incapable of defending himself against such charges.
This is all speculation of course. And I'm open to alternate opinions. But the whole thing, certainly seems odd.
Barr's admission that the Special Counsel's Office can't actually prosecute a sitting president leads to some pretty pointed questions about his stance on other things.
For instance, since both parties seem to rather easily agree that prosecuting was never an option. And since the investigation was not opened specifically to investigate whether or not President Trump should be prosecuted it seems fallacious to imply that the Special Counsel's Office should have investigated far enough to reach a determination on whether or not they would have prosecuted where it not for the fact that they all know that they couldn't.
This is tantamount to asking a publicly funded research team why they didn't investigate the possible conclusions of known impossible outcomes. Like... why didn't NASA waste tax payer money investigating options for reaching the moon without accounting for gravity. We cannot remove gravity, therefore is makes no sense to investigate outcomes which ignore this.
Similarly, since we can all agree that the Mueller couldn't actually prosecute a sitting President, why would he bother playing make believe and pursuing the investigation to those ends?
Furthermore... it is concerning to my why Barr would even be making these arguments publicly. He has basically stated that he believes rendering this decision was a reasonable expectation of what he was contracted to do. Or put another way, in a roundabout way, he has accused Mueller of defrauding the government and tax payer.
If he legitimately believed that, given the visibility of the case and potential impacts on undermining the government and presidency, they really should be prosecuting Mueller. Not slandering him publicly.
The only reason (in my opinion) not to do so is the knowledge that you're talking out your ass and such a trial would never prevail.
But then, why provoke? It is also seems likely that Mueller believes Trump would be prosecutable were it not for the fact that he is still a sitting President. This seems likely because if Mueller agreed with Barr there would be no reason to try clarify his stance. But, furthermore, if Mueller felt the evidence didn't lean one way or another, it would be best to err on the side of presuming innocence.
Frankly, I suspect Mueller would be crossing a legal line if he tried to draw a verdict. He doesn't actually have the authority to render a verdict. This isn't a trial and he isn't the judge. As with all other cases that came out of this, all he has the authority to do is decide whether or not to begin prosecuting. Which, he can't actually do against Trump at present.
Given the authority of his office, if he renders an opinion, he could likely be seen as abusing his authority and may even be susceptible to defamation, libel or slander suits. And worse, because he can't prosecute Trump, he would actually be legally incapable of defending himself against such charges.
This is all speculation of course. And I'm open to alternate opinions. But the whole thing, certainly seems odd.
Comments
Post a Comment