Flood spotlighted an “extraordinary legal defect” in Mueller’s report: It “quite deliberately fails to comply with the requirements of governing law.”
Mueller concluded there was no collusion, but then oddly stated the evidence “prevent[ed]” the investigators “from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred” regarding obstruction of justice.
That was not Mueller’s job, Flood wrote.
“Making conclusive determinations of innocence is never the task of a federal prosecutor,” he explained.
The president’s advisers reportedly were preparing a lengthy, possibly more than 100-page, response to the report.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a chief promoter of the now-debunked collusion claim, snarked Friday that it appeared the White House response to the Mueller report was the four-page memo Barr provided to Congress just before the report was released April 18.
“Ever wonder what happened to the ‘counter report’ Rudy Giuliani said he would issue after Mueller’s own report came out? Apparently, it was only four pages long. And Barr released it for him.”
But in his April 19 letter, the White House counsel had plenty to say about the Mueller report.
“What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case,” he wrote.
“When prosecutors decline to charge, they make that decision not because they have ‘conclusively determin[ed] that no criminal conduct occurred,’ but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be prove to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The fact that Mueller, and his team of mostly Democratic-supporting investigators and lawyers, included a collection of “evidence” but did not recommend charges provided fodder for Democrats such as Schiff who continued to claim Trump committed crimes.
“Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence, any more than they are in the business of ‘exonerating’ investigated persons,” Flood wrote. “In the American justice system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to ‘conclusively determine’ it. Nor is there an place for such a determination. Our country would be a very different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were obliged to prove ‘conclusively … that no criminal conduct occurred.'”
Much of the content of the Mueller report amounts to “political statements,” Flood said.
Mueller’s 182 pages of “raw evidentiary material combined with its own inconclusive observations” became a “prosecutorial curiosity,” “part ‘truth commission’ report and part law school exam paper.”
Mueller also used “presumptively privileged” information in his report, the White House counsel said.
Now the real crimes should be investigated, he insisted
“The following should not be forgotten. Government officials, with access to classified information derived from a counterintelligence investigation and from classified intelligence intercepts, engaged in a campaign of illegal leaks against the president. Many of those leaks were felonies. They disclosed the identity of a U.S. person in violation of his civil rights; they misused intelligence for partisan political purposes; and they eroded public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our intelligence services,” Flood warned.
Limbaugh said Mueller’s report should have been completed in a couple of pages.
“All those pages are to slime and smear Trump by listing a bunch of garbage that could not be used to even charge him with a crime and so that stuff should never even have been included is the basic point Flood is making here,” he said. “That stuff is prejudicial, it’s defamatory. And the fact that you include it when you can’t use it to even make a charge is outrageous.
“This report has no business being released, period. It had no business being produced as it was, and we’re getting it on record here from the White House that we think this is a travesty of the American judicial system.”