The Federalist's Sean Davis pretty much sums up why in his column about Mr. Mueller's peculiar press conference Wednesday.
Mueller revealed himself to be animated by motives much less noble than a duty to find the truth. He showed himself to be willing to employ innuendo and unscrupulous tactics in order to destroy a man against whom he could find no evidence of any crime.
Davis opens with this:
If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law.The weirdest statement in his presser, which was itself very strange given that Mueller claimed that he has nothing to add to his 400+ page report, was his assertion that if his team had confidence in President Trump's innocence they would've said so.
He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.
Here's Davis on this astonishing declaration:
Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.”Mueller wasn't tasked with finding evidence of Trump's innocence. How could there be evidence of such a thing? Imagine trying to adduce evidence, for example, that President Obama was not an Iranian secret agent. It's hard to imagine what such evidence might even look like.
“Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.” Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.
“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent.
Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.
The duty of an investigator is not to demonstrate innocence, it's to find evidence of guilt. If that evidence is lacking then the person is presumed innocent and is officially exculpated. Mueller's claim that they had no basis for indictment but that they could not exonerate Trump is not only a legal absurdity, it's morally reprehensible since it deliberately leaves a stain on a man's character and encourages continued harassment of him by his foes.
Davis had a lot more to say about Mr. Mueller's shortcomings and anyone interested in learning more about why Mr. Mueller is in need of ethical remediation is encouraged to read the rest of his column.
