The following is an excerpt of my latest analysis in The Hill.
Most of now-former special counsel Robert Mueller’s public statement to the press last week seemed to fall under the category of “Fair enough.” After all, the man did nearly two years of work, he kept largely silent throughout, and he alternately was called a hero or a dog.
So the day Mueller resigns, he chooses to make a fairly brief statementputting a button on all of it, and at the same time declining to take any questions, before gliding back into private life.
But there’s at least one comment Mueller made that nags at me. It’s when he said, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Mueller must have had his reasons for shading his commentary in that way rather than in the other direction: If they’d found adequate evidence to implicate Trump in a crime, or even “collusion,” they would have said that, too.
The statement Mueller chose to give carries with it an implication that his team looked for evidence of President Trump’s innocence but simply could not find it. With that in mind, I thought of a short list of questions I’d like to ask Mueller, if ever permitted to do so:
- What witnesses did you interview and what evidence did you collect in an attempt to exonerate Trump or prove him not guilty? (I believe the answer would be, “None. It’s not the job of a special counsel or prosecutor to do so.” Therefore, was Mueller’s comment appropriate?
Read the rest of the article in The Hill by clicking the link below: