"I Am Not A Crook!"

Mueller did not establish conspiracy. That’s different from saying he found no collusion. Sometimes my father-in-law can’t find his car in the parking lot. That doesn’t mean his car is not there. We need to see the full report to understand the facts so we can safeguard elections

— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) March 27, 2019

The standard of evidence for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  If Robert Mueller decided the evidence did not meet that standard, he was right to say there was insufficient evidence of a crime.  However, the report of a special prosecutor is not a nolle prosequi or a decision not to take a case to a grand jury.  It is a report on an investigation, and the evidence found. 

It may well be Mueller, constrained by Justice Department regulations, found no crime could be charged against a sitting President because he is a sitting President.  It may be he thought there was sufficient evidence for impeachment, or even impeachment hearings.  It may be he thought there was evidence of criminal action, but not enough to bear the weight of prosecution, even by sealed indictment awaiting the end of the Presidential term of office.

The simple fact is:  we don't know.

News reports were that no sealed indictments were pending.  There is no official statement from the Special Prosecutors office, though.  The official report is in the hands of the Attorney General.  Some of it needs to be kept secret because of pending litigation; some because of classified material, but that may not be the material the FBI is briefing the "Gang of 8" on this week.  Some of the material is grand jury testimony, which should remain sealed to protect the validity of grand jury proceedings.

But we also do not make political decisions about politicians based on a criminal standard of evidence.  To be frank, American history is rife with politicians re-elected to office after criminal convictions.  Even a felony record is not an absolute bar to electoral success.  The problem with prosecuting a sitting President is the political implications of the prosecution, not the legal ones.  There is a problem with striking at the king; but the countervailing issue is the regulation establishing a king, by implication.  The President is not above the law, and there are no provisions of law that toll statutes of limitations until the President has served the Constitutionally allowed terms of office.  Still, neither do we want President's subject to criminal investigations and trials on a frequent basis.

That's one more argument for not impeaching Trump.  Until Clinton, impeachment had been tried only once in our nation's history.  If Trump were impeached, it would be the second time in less than 50 years.  The Clinton impeachment never should have happened; why pour more gasoline on that fire?

On the other hand, evidence of criminal action, even if not sufficient to prosecute, is evidence the people should have about their office holders, especially when that office is the Presidency.  Evidence insufficient to sustain a criminal charge is not evidence of the good character of the officeholder, and may well be relevant evidence for the voters.  Ironically, this was James Comey's reasoning during the 2016 elections; but his sin was releasing that evidence so close to the election, not in releasing it at all.*

When Nixon said he was not a crook, he was deflecting the real issue.  The question of Nixon's presidency had become, not his criminality of lack thereof, but his fitness for the office.  The person he presented himself to be, and the person he was in office, away from the glare of the lights, proved to be two different people.  If his abuse of his powers of office were not criminal, they were still unacceptable.  It may well be the revelation of what Trump and his minions did is not criminal; it may even be unremarkable, given the people who despise Trump cannot think worse of him, and those who support him cannot be persuaded otherwise.  But Trump is not some rich guy with a media megaphone, or even some political party official who speaks through some implied agency for others.  He is the President of the United States.  That puts him in a fishbowl, and we the people deserve to know how he is conducting himself in such high office.  If all we learn is that it is just as bad as we thought, if all the evidence does is confirm the basest suspicions of his opposition, still it should be revealed.

After all, we the people paid for that report.

*Mitch McConnell agrees:

McConnell was adamant that the complete Mueller report continue to be withheld because it would be wrong to release something “when we think it may be politically advantageous to one side or the other.” Which is the justification for writing another “summary” rather than releasing the report.

Not that this kept the special prosecutors in Watergate or Whitewater from issuing full reports full of information insufficient (especially in the latter case) to provide a basis for criminal charges.

And, almost coincidentally, Rick Wilson links to an important set of questions that show why answers are important:

16 questions Barr didn't answer that Mueller's report could https://t.co/9lGSJ298F4 via @bpolitics

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) March 27, 2019

And, lastly and just "oh, by the way" (because things keep happening on these issues):

BIG: Per @dsamuelsohn, federal prosecutors said in court today that the MUELLER GRAND JURY is "continuing robustly," even as he's handed off much of his work to U.S. attorneys.  https://t.co/U699s5y5hs

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) March 27, 2019

Very interesting, indeed.