,
19 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD on Mueller and his evidentiary standard:
There is confusion about its fact-finding because the report should have been more clear, but it is clear enough its standard was proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."
But that's not the standard for counterintell or impeachment...1/
There is confusion about its fact-finding because the report should have been more clear, but it is clear enough its standard was proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."
But that's not the standard for counterintell or impeachment...1/
2/ When the report says "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," it should be understood as:
"It did not establish crimes beyond a reasonable doubt."
"It did not establish crimes beyond a reasonable doubt."
3/ I made this argument on Fri on @realTrumpcast w/ @page88. Then I took a long Passover break. Now I lay it out here:
Even if it says it didn't find proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it shows that there was more likely than not a conspiracy & coordination.
Even if it says it didn't find proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it shows that there was more likely than not a conspiracy & coordination.
4/ On page 1, the Mueller Report's first paragraph tells you exactly what it is:
"A report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions."
"A report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions."
5/ One problem is that page 2 is muddled in several ways. This is where the legal standard should have been explicit. I think the report is clear later, but it was an error that the report was confusing here. (And that's not the only legal error on p. 2.
H/t @ThePaulSRyan)...
H/t @ThePaulSRyan)...
6/ Digression on "coordination": @thepaulsryan shows the Mueller Report is wrong when it says "coordination does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement - tacit or express." See his thread:
7/ Back to proof: It's more clear that the Report requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" throughout the report, especially in its introductory section and concluding "charging decisions" section of Vol 1.
Intro section, p. 8: "sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction."
Intro section, p. 8: "sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction."
8/ Pg. 9 on charging decisions.
Note that the report says explicitly, "Those lies [by Trump campaign officials] materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference." The report says the lies and obstruction hindered its investigation into Russian conspiracy..
Note that the report says explicitly, "Those lies [by Trump campaign officials] materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference." The report says the lies and obstruction hindered its investigation into Russian conspiracy..
9/ (On that same point: Witnesses deleted emails and used apps with encryption or deletion functions, which also thwarted fact-finding...)
10/ More on the report as a prosecutorial explanation of charging decisions in the context of proof beyond a reasonable doubt:
11/ Requiring proof "beyond a reasonable doubt":
12/ Here, the Mueller Report is explicit about requiring proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," and not just "probable cause" or a preponderance of the evidence."
13/ And more of Mueller requiring "proof beyond a reasonable doubt here, here, and here:
14/ Two more examples of the Mueller report requiring proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's 10 references to this high burden of proof in Volume 1.
15/ Two bottom lines:
1. The Mueller Report makes errors and is not a clearly written legal document. This question should have been clearly addressed from the beginning. Nevertheless, I suggest the report eventually applies its legal standard: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
1. The Mueller Report makes errors and is not a clearly written legal document. This question should have been clearly addressed from the beginning. Nevertheless, I suggest the report eventually applies its legal standard: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
16/ 2d bottom line:
A fair reading of the Mueller Report shows that, even if not beyond a reasonable doubt, there was Trump/Russia conspiracy & coordination as high crimes and misdemeanors beyond a preponderance/ more-likely-than-not standard.
A fair reading of the Mueller Report shows that, even if not beyond a reasonable doubt, there was Trump/Russia conspiracy & coordination as high crimes and misdemeanors beyond a preponderance/ more-likely-than-not standard.
17/ A 3d bottom line is that the report essentially tells us that 1 reason it couldn’t reach the high threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (even if it may have reached preponderance) was Trump’s repeated obstruction (witness tampering, pardon dangling, attempted firing).
18/ Two moments seem to establish by a preponderance (more likely than not) "that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
A) Manafort/Gates w/ Russian spy Kilimnik
B) Trump/Stone/Wiki/Russia
A) Manafort/Gates w/ Russian spy Kilimnik
B) Trump/Stone/Wiki/Russia
19/ Let me note that the Report does include a statement about its fact-finding as "substantial, credible evidence" (p.2). But when applies criminal law and applies it to those facts, its standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," "sufficient for conviction." (Part V, cf. p. 8-9)
