Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

Shall we talk about what it means that Mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring some of these charges?

I assume people have questions.

Insufficient evidence doesn't mean "no evidence" and it doesn't mean "they didn't do anything wrong."

Let's take J.D. Gordan and the changing of the GOP Party platform.

Mueller concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he was acting at the direction of Russia.

Maybe he wasn't.

Maybe he did it becuase Trump's pals prefer Putin-style autocracy over democracy.

They love Russia and Putin, who Richard Spenser has called the "sole white power in the world." See:
terikanefield.com/no-the-entire-…

I don't know whether Mueller's assessment was correct because I haven't seen all the evidence . . .

I looked at some comments to the reporting and felt a bit sick.

I wonder if social media is turning everyone into authoritarians who crave a police state where any evidence at all of a crime means heavy boots at the door and off the person goes to prison.

Back to the topic. . .

Okay, maybe one more digression😆

I have spent my career frustrated by the decisions prosecutors have made, but our rule of law system means prosecutors weigh evidence and decide.

Rule of law doesn't mean everyone who commits a crime goes to jail. Quite the opposite, actually.

NOW back to the topic.

Thus passage about Jr. is interesting.

Apparently there was insufficient evidence to charge a felony, but evidence sufficient for a misdemeanor, which Mueller declined to charge a misdemeanor under the principles that guide federal prosecutors.

What did Jr. do that was a misdemeanor?

🔹A password was sent to Jr. by wikileaks.
🔹Jr. told others that it worked when he tried it.
🔹Therefore, he accessed a computer without authorization.

So what's the principle that guided Mueller?
It's in Justice Manual § 9-27.230.

Prosecutors are supposed to "consider, among other things, the nature and seriousness of the offense, the person’s culpability in connection with the offense, and the probable sentence to be imposed if the prosecution is successful."

Here's Mueller's conclusion:

In other words, it seems that Mueller concluded that given those facts, it's not the kind of thing that would ordinarily be prosecuted, so he didn't.

Also, really, it's small peanuts.

But I like to answer questions, so, sigh. I guess I just skim looking for the thoughtful questions.

https://twitter.com/kaoconnor/status/1492280534818504706

Remember that Mueller indicted 34 people and 3 companies including lots of Trump's inner circle.

You see, federal prosecutors don't like to lose. . .

. . . if they bring cases that they lose (or that makes them look petty and unserious) they lose credibility and waste resources.

https://twitter.com/thalion94598/status/1492285517659983873Thanks

.
Thanks ⤵️Perhaps that's because I have gotten good at ignoring the mean, the ugly, and the cynical.

Speaking of cynicism, I think people like me who spent their careers defending indigents understand best that we want it hard to throw people in jail.

To be clear, Mueller made his decision not to prosecute the misdemeanor based on these facts:

🔹Jr. did not initiate the plan to access the computer; the password was sent to him.

🔹Wikileaks sent him the password, and also made it available to the public . . .

🔹Jr.'s act of entering the site* caused no damage and he gained no benefit, so it's hard to say he did it in furtherance of a larger crime.

*a site, not a computer, sorry for the error in the previous tweet.

Under the guidelines, what matters is. . .

. . . "the nature and seriousness of the offense, the person’s culpability in connection with the offense."

Mueller concluded that under the guidelines, what Jr. did should not be prosecuted.

This may be a shock if you think every single crime is prosecuted. Nope.