'shame on Mueller' - Alan Dershowitz calls Russia probe findings bad news for CNN


Dershowitz said Mueller seemed to try having it both ways. “It sounds like a law-school exam,” he said, adding that the report sounded wishy-washy. “Shame on Mueller.”
The special counsel “did not draw a conclusion” as to whether obstruction of justice took place, according to a letter with the key findings released Sunday by Attorney General William Barr.
Dershowitz also said it was a great day for Trump and a “very bad day for CNN” given how many of the left-leaning cable network's personalities and guests predicted the probe would lead to a slew of indictments for collusion and obstruction. “They should be hanging their heads in shame.”
Watch below:


He has a point. Instead of making a decision Mueller puts out a statement and leaves it up to AG Barr, who of course is going to exonerate Trump. If there’s no evidence he should say so and if there is he should say so. Passing the buck is what everyone on both sides is constantly doing so that we can endlessly squabble and never get to a decisive end.

Comments

  1. a) I agree with Dershowitz’s assessment of the crappy way Mueller ended this FUBAR investigation. And his smack down of CNN specifically was icing on the cake.
    b) Mueller didn’t only leave it OPEN for AG Barr to interrupt, I believe Mueller did it intentionally to give the MSM and the Democrats plenty of room to continue with their attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe I’m looking at this all wrong, and I am not a deep state person who thinks Trump is guilty.

    I’m just looking at this in terms of semantics.

    Proving someone or something to be innocent is NEARLY impossible. To prove someone didn’t do something (or to prove that an event never happened) is not the way our justice system works. That is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution (or in this case Mueller). If he doesn’t find anything to suggest collusion, again simply going with semantics, that’s not the same thing as proven innocence.

    I hate to even bring up this argument of semantics because I do not think those with TDS will understand what I am trying to say. Maybe I should just go with the “he was proven innocent” argument to avoid any sort of confusion with the TDS crowd.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment