In America a person is presumed innocent until the prosecution can convince a judge or jury that that person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors do not “prove people innocent.” They do not exonerate them. Prosecutors either present evidence to a grand jury for indictments or they decline to do so. They either charge a person or they don’t. It is a binary decision that they must make. If they decline to charge, the individual is innocent as a matter of law.
SC Mueller did not make the binary decision he was charged with making. He did not do what the SC regulations required him to do.
Emmett Flood, White House Counsel, has taken the time to point out the defects in the Special Counsel’s Report in a letter to the DOJ.
Flood stated,
In other words, this is a polite way of saying the report itself is illegal.
With regards to the collusion/conspiracy claims, SC Mueller did decline to charge any American. Charges were brought against Russian individuals and entities. One Russian entity did not exist at the time of the charged crimes. It seems clear at this point in time that the investigation into Russian interference was done by some time in late 2017.
As we know now, there was no basis to investigate Russian collusion in the first place. The premise of Trump campaign conspiring with Russians was all a set-up, based on “spies” inserted into the Trump campaign as reported recently by the NY Times. Keep in mind this means that there was “no probable cause.” This means that PDJT and others had their 4th amendment rights violated.
However, ending the investigation then would have resulted in the possible uncovering of the malfeasance by multiple Obama administration people at that point in time. Mueller received new marching orders in August 2017 through a revised SC Order of Appointment. This allowed him to try to leverage specific individuals in pursuit of a possible obstruction of justice crime against PDJT.
In his letter Flood moved right to the obstruction determination. He pointed out the obvious defect in Mueller’s Report. At the same time he indicated just how problematic this approach was.
Flood goes on to state that this is an “inverted proof standard.” Proving innocence is never the job of a prosecutor. By including such language in the report, Mueller was making a political statement which prosecutors are never supposed to do.
Flood goes on to speak about what the SC was supposed to do and what he was not supposed to do. He pointed out that the regulations governing closing documentation preclude the possibility of the type of report Mueller produced. Mueller went ahead and did this anyway.
It is blatantly obvious that the purpose of the obstruction portion of the report was to provide material for impeachment for the Democrats in Congress. That is not the purpose of the Special Counsel. His job was to determine whether a crime was committed that could be proved. Instead it appears that the investigation was a shield for members of the Obama administration who may have tried to overthrow the government of the United States.
The full text of Flood’s letter is here.
