After yesterday's statement by former special prosecutor Robert Mueller, the discussion has gone off in the usual ways. If you watch MSNBC, you hear that Mueller told us that the President has "lied" and should be impeached. On the other side, the Trump supporters (of which I am one) point out that Mueller didn't say anything different than what is in his report which we have all had for many weeks. That's all been discussed to death in the media. I want to focus instead on what is truly disturbing about what Mueller had to say.
We all know that in American law, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. That proof has to come from a prosecutor and it has to be proven to a point where it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If a jury thinks that a person is more likely to have committed a crime but still has doubts, that jury is told to find the defendant not guilty. It's a system that has been in place since the founding of this nation and even before that during colonial days. Mueller, a prosecutor, indeed a special prosecutor knows this standard. He is required to follow it. But here is how Mueller put the rule he followed with regard to the claims against President Trump that he and his group investigated:
"And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
President Trump isn't "not guilty" if Mueller couldn't prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No, Mueller says he would pronounce Trump "not guilty" only if he could be sure that the President had not committed a crime. And it wasn't enough for them to believe the President hadn't committed a crime, it had to be "clear" that he did not. In other words, they weren't trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed a crime; no, in order to declare Trump not guilty they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent. That stands our system of justice on its head. It also puts and intolerable and unfair burden on President Trump.
Let me use an example to illustrate how this works. Let's talk about whether or not president Obama was born in the USA. For years, the people that the media called "birthers" said that Obama was not qualified to be president since he was born in Kenya. Let's assume that it would be a crime if he got sworn in as president while knowing that he was barred by the Constitution from holding that office. Prosecutors could look at this matter and they would see the birth certificate from Hawaii that president Obama made public. Under the proper standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be no way that Obama could be found guilty, so he would be "not guilty". Under the standard that Mueller used, however, prosecutors would see that when Obama was in law school, his bio in the Law Review of which he was editor said he was born in Kenya. The promotional materials for his first book published long before he ever ran for office also said he was born in Kenya. Under Mueller's stand, there would be no way for the prosecutors to have confidence that Obama clearly had not committed a crime, so they wouldn't say he was not guilty.
So Mueller did exactly the wrong thing. Mueller reviewed Trump's case considering an impossible standard for Trump to meet.
We all know that in American law, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. That proof has to come from a prosecutor and it has to be proven to a point where it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If a jury thinks that a person is more likely to have committed a crime but still has doubts, that jury is told to find the defendant not guilty. It's a system that has been in place since the founding of this nation and even before that during colonial days. Mueller, a prosecutor, indeed a special prosecutor knows this standard. He is required to follow it. But here is how Mueller put the rule he followed with regard to the claims against President Trump that he and his group investigated:
"And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
President Trump isn't "not guilty" if Mueller couldn't prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No, Mueller says he would pronounce Trump "not guilty" only if he could be sure that the President had not committed a crime. And it wasn't enough for them to believe the President hadn't committed a crime, it had to be "clear" that he did not. In other words, they weren't trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed a crime; no, in order to declare Trump not guilty they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent. That stands our system of justice on its head. It also puts and intolerable and unfair burden on President Trump.
Let me use an example to illustrate how this works. Let's talk about whether or not president Obama was born in the USA. For years, the people that the media called "birthers" said that Obama was not qualified to be president since he was born in Kenya. Let's assume that it would be a crime if he got sworn in as president while knowing that he was barred by the Constitution from holding that office. Prosecutors could look at this matter and they would see the birth certificate from Hawaii that president Obama made public. Under the proper standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be no way that Obama could be found guilty, so he would be "not guilty". Under the standard that Mueller used, however, prosecutors would see that when Obama was in law school, his bio in the Law Review of which he was editor said he was born in Kenya. The promotional materials for his first book published long before he ever ran for office also said he was born in Kenya. Under Mueller's stand, there would be no way for the prosecutors to have confidence that Obama clearly had not committed a crime, so they wouldn't say he was not guilty.
So Mueller did exactly the wrong thing. Mueller reviewed Trump's case considering an impossible standard for Trump to meet.
No comments:
Post a Comment