Header Ads

NYT reporter is apparently struggling with the meaning of ‘evidence developed during the (Mueller probe) is not sufficient’

New York Times reporter Peter Baker attempted to use Attorney General William Barr’s letter disclosing the conclusion of the Mueller report to refute a quote by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders.
Mueller (as quoted by Barr): "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Sanders: "There was no obstruction which I don't know how you can interpret that any other way than total exoneration."

1,502 people are talking about this
But there are a couple of problems.
For one, he left out this key point from the letter written by both Barr and deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.

For another, even if it did, it would not be up to Robert Mueller about whether prosecution or non-prosecution should occur.
Prosecutors don't exonerate. They either file charges or they don't. When they don't, the subject of their investigation is legally not guilty just like everyone else. As such it is in essence an exoneration. Attorneys would love juries to come back not guilty/not exonerated.
39 people are talking about this
Many believe that Mueller was out of line in declaring that the report did not exonerate Trump.

With the release of the full Mueller report imminent, one has to wonder what the meltdown on the Left is going to be like if it reflects exactly what William Barr put in his letter.

No comments