Dirty Bob Mueller tries to reverse the burden of proof:
The most remarkable thing about Dirty Bob
Mueller’s 448-page report is how blithely the prosecutor reversed the burden of proof
on the issue of obstruction.
The president could have shut down the investigation at any time, but he didn’t. He could have asserted executive privilege to deny the special counsel access to key White House witnesses, such as McGahn. To the contrary, numerous witnesses were made available voluntarily (there was no need to even subpoena them to the grand jury), and well over a million documents were disclosed, including voluminous notes of meetings between the president and his White House counsel.
Most important, the special counsel found that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that the president’s frustration was that the investigation was undermining his ability to govern the country. The existence of such a motive is a strong counter to evidence of a corrupt intent, critical because corrupt intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in an obstruction case.
Idiot, Trump ordered McGhan to fire Mueller - not very co-operative, is it now?
Mueller can’t convict Trump as per DOJ guidelines, nor can he provide deregulatory statements about criminality since he is not bringing charges. So what they felt they are down to is simply presenting the evidence.
If they had an obstruction case, they would have made it
Did you read what you quoted before copying and posting stupid nonsence?
Prosecutors either bring charges or they keep silent. Dirty Bob Mueller didn't do his job.
In his report, Dirty Bob Mueller punted. If he had been satisfied that there was no obstruction crime, he said, he would have so found. He claimed he wasn’t satisfied. Yet he was also not convinced that there was sufficient proof to charge. Therefore, he made no decision, leaving it to Attorney General William Barr to find that there was no obstruction.
This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.
This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.
https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mueller-completely-dropped-the-ball-with-obstruction-punt/