Stubborn as a Mueller

In the history of fatuous statements, somewhere between Bill Clinton’s disquisition on what the meaning of the word “is” is and theologians debating how many angels can stand on the point of a pin, which, given the discovery of quantum mechanics and the advent of nanoscopy, is no longer an absurd argument; in the last 700 years, between George Lucas’s unauthorized use of Duns Scotus’s brown robe and cincture, worn by Sir Alec Guinness during the filming of “Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope,” and seconds before an unpaid intern did a mic check at Robert Mueller’s press conference; never has someone said so many erroneous things in so few words.

Mueller on Wednesday said: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Put another way, Mueller has no confidence in the evidence (or lack thereof) to seek an indictment against President Trump—for anything. Mueller is not confident that he can convince a judge or jury that the president is guilty of a crime, that he can prove so beyond a reasonable doubt.

The legal standard is clear; it has nothing to do with confidence. We are, after all, a government of laws and not of men, no matter what that man, Robert Swan Mueller III, says to the contrary.

Unable to bear the burden of proof, and unwilling to say that he cannot prove what he suspects, Mueller tries to slander the president instead; intimating that he believes that Trump is not not-guilty, that the president is guilty of something, once you cast aside due process, attorney-client privilege, and repeal the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution.

We should take comfort in the fact that our judicial system has nothing to do with confidence, or a confidence man like Robert Mueller.

Photo credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.