Evidence about the president’s actions and intent

Meanwhile the report is out.

The Guardian (like everyone else) is racing through it and sharing some highlights. Like the part where it’s less exculpatory than Barr told us it was:

In his introduction to the second part of his report, on obstruction of justice, Robert Mueller goes much further than attorney general Bill Barr has suggested and points to serious wrongdoing on Trump’s part that could amount to criminal activity.

Mueller states that had his team concluded that the president had committed no crime, they would have said so. Instead, Mueller writes:

Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

There’s more trouble for Trump in the next sentence. Mueller alludes to having found “evidence about the president’s actions and intent” that “prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred”. Mueller adds:

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Which is…you know…quite an ordinary situation in criminal investigations. They can find some evidence but not enough. The suspect walks, but that doesn’t automatically mean the suspect didn’t do it.

If only it had been.

8 Responses to “Evidence about the president’s actions and intent”