Originally Posted by
Sukiyama
The President being accused doesn't mean that his crimes are limited to those that he is being accused of. This isn't a matter of "digging until something sticks". This is a matter of finding out whether the President has been involved in serious crimes that are inappropriate for somebody in his position. The report not clearing him isn't meaningless, in fact, that's one of the sticking points behind the on-going hearings and sentiments of impeachment.
I didn't say it was useless. In fact, I've praised it repeatedly.
I'll stop lying when you stop lying about how there is insufficient evidence. Or maybe neither of us are liars since you're just resorting to gross hyperbole.
That's exactly what it means. And no, it doesn't mean that Mueller wasn't able to recommend prosecution. It means he refuses to even comment on the matter. Mueller's report, in short, is simply a list of evidence and things it has gathered regarding the President. It does not make any judgement or conclusion whatsoever. In fact, it even says as much.
"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct...At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
So stop mincing words. You're starting to sound like a civil servant in a committee.
The report does provide the basis for impeachment. Absence of a conclusion or recommendation or judgement or whatever, does not mean that Congress does not have a base on which to form a cause for impeachment. The report provides plenty of evidence of serious misconduct. Not to mention that the articles for impeachment do not set out a definitive and comprehensive set of criteria. Most exemplified by the rather trivial impeachment of Bill Clinton. Trump is long past sexual deviancy.
It hasn't, and it's not a single witness. The attempted removal of the SC involved McGahn, Rosenstein, Priebus, and god knows who else. The report detailed this thoroughly, and cited numerous witnesses. So no, it's not a single witness, numerous witnesses were used to confirm the interactions between McGahn and Trump. The article refers to this as "evidence". And yeah, considering the two-page analysis of the attempted removal of the SC, and the manner in which it was written, I don't see how any reasonable person could refers to this in any other way than, "Intent here is super-clear".
The range of possibilities also involves "highly unlikely", which the alternative explanations for the removal of the SC are. For the record, the alternative explanation was,
"A threshold question is whetherthe President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special
Counsel removed. After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered
McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts , and
privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the
Department of Justice 's attention ."
Mueller says that there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In four parts.
1. McGahn is a credible witness.
2. Circumstantial evidence (other witnesses) confirm McGahn's side of the story.
3. The President's behavior does not support the alternative explanation.
4. The President's prior behavior and other circumstantial evidence does not support the alternative explanation.
In other words, the support for the likely intent here is extremely strong, and the alternative explanation is extremely weak. Or as the article puts it, "Intent is super-clear"