,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
They quoted the wrong paragraph!
Gotta look at "First," and "Second," not so much "Third," 
The SCO's idea is that there's some great constitutional advantage to speaking in riddles--"we wouldn't tell you if the president committed a crime, but we would tell you if he did not commit a crime, and we're not telling you that" is preferable to "he obstructed justice."
Here's how I think about it-- We have only 3 options: (1) Trump committed a crime, (2) he didn't, or (3) there's not enough evidence to say.
Mueller says he would tell us if it was option (2), and the first volume of his report shows he would also tell us if it was option (3).
Mueller says he would tell us if it was option (2), and the first volume of his report shows he would also tell us if it was option (3).
Moreover, the second volume of Mueller's report lays out hundreds of pages of evidence satisfying--over and over again--all the elements of the obstruction of justice statutes.
It's clear from the report that the only conclusion Mueller would withhold from us is option (1)--Trump committed a crime. And Mueller is withholding a conclusion from us.
So, while it's frustrating that he made it into a puzzle, I am not uncertain about what he means.
So, while it's frustrating that he made it into a puzzle, I am not uncertain about what he means.
btw, the above is why Barr and Rosenstein’s weekend decision to clear Trump on obstruction was so subversive. It contradicted Mueller’s little riddle (which was then still a closely held secret) and replaced it with the opposite of what Mueller had tried to convey.
