RE: “If We Had Confidence President Did Not Commit a Crime We Would Have Said So”
There are so many ways to parse this. We can also parse that to mean:
1) If we had confidence that the President DID commit a crime, we would not have said so.
2) If we had confidence that the President DID commit a crime, we would have said so.
3) We suspect that the President did commit a crime and are confident that he did, but we have no good evidence to show that he did. So, we leave you with this suspicion hanging in the air, make of it what you wish.
( fill your other parse words here )
#1 would be nonsense at best or dereliction of duty at worst.
#2 Simply tells us that they are unsure if the President did commit a crime.
I believe #3 seems to be the more plausible interpretation. But since they could not provide good evidence, the presumption of innocence in our legal system still applies.
Prosecutors either have enough to bring charges or they don’t....it is not up to them to declare anything else....bring a charge or shut up.
bkmk
We don’t need no stinking evidence!
Makes sense— you’re guilty, unless proven innocent. Right? /s
Trust me the very opposite is true...had they found the slightest evidence that Trump committed anything remotely criminal they would have been all over it. Mueller’s sophistry is appalling... they could find no evidence of crime, but they couldn’t say there wasn’t any. Kind of like finding Bigfoot... there is no hard evidence Bigfoot exists, but it could still be out there.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Because this traitorous cabal of compromised extreme LIB integrity-free a**holes were illegitimate in the first place , these criminals presuppose guilt. All should be disbarred and arrested .