Gregg Jarrett: The two faces of Robert Mueller, and Trump’s presumption of guilt – Fox News

Gregg Jarrett: The two faces of Robert Mueller, and Trump’s presumption of guilt – Fox News

Robert Mueller: Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider

Speaking publicly for first time since the release of Russia report, special counsel Robert Mueller says there were ‘multiple, systematic efforts’ to interfere with the presidential election, that his team found insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy, and that if there was confidence that the president did not commit a crime, the report would have said so.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has peddled two different stories. Only one can be true. 

In his final act before resigning his position, Mueller told the gathered media on Wednesday that his non-decision decision on whether the president obstructed justice was “informed” by a long-standing opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. But according to William Barr, that’s not what Mueller told the attorney general and others during a meeting on March 5, 2017. Here’s what Barr told Senators during his May 1st testimony:

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”  


Barr said there were others in the meeting who heard Mueller say the same thing – that the OLC opinion played no role in the special counsel’s decision-making or lack thereof. The attorney general repeated this in his news conference the day Mueller’s report was released to the public:

“We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”

Yet, on Wednesday Mueller was telling a different tale. He seemed to argue that he could not have accused the president of obstruction because he was handcuffed by the OLC opinion.  Why, then, did Mueller allegedly inform Barr that a special counsel can abandon the opinion if the facts merit it?

“He (Mueller) said that in the future the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.”   

Mueller did not abandon the OLC opinion in this case because he surely knew the facts and evidence did not support the law of obstruction. Instead, in his 448-page report, he implied presidential obstruction in a remarkable achievement in creative writing.

He set forth in luxurious detail “evidence on both sides of the question.” But this is not the job of any chief prosecutor, anywhere.

Mueller was not retained to compose a masterpiece worthy of Proust. He was hired to investigate potential crimes arising from Russian interference in a presidential election and make a reasoned decision on whether charges were merited. 

Mueller’s actions were not only noxious but patently unfair to Trump.  The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality. 

Mueller’s actions were not only noxious, but patently unfair to Trump.  The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality. 

This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment. 

How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion.

If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so.  If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent.

In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report. It was guaranteed to ignite the impeachment fire:

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”     

To reinforce the point, Mueller stated it twice in his report. He then reiterated the argument on Wednesday when he said: “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Prosecutors are not, and have never been, in the business of exonerating people. That’s not their job. 

An experienced federal prosecutor, Mueller certainly knew this. It appears he had no intention of treating Trump equitably or applying the law in conformance with our criminal justice system.

In a singular sentence, Mueller managed to reverse the legal duty that prosecutors have rigidly followed in America for centuries.  Their legal obligation is not to exonerate someone or prove an individual’s innocence.  Nor is any accused person required to prove his or her own innocence.

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence.  It is the bedrock on which justice is built. 

Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. 

The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Think about what that rationale really means. It is a double negative. Mueller was contending that he can’t prove something didn’t happen.

What if this were the standard for all criminal investigations? Apply it to yourself.

Let’s say you deposited your paycheck at the bank on Monday, the same day it’s robbed.  A prosecutor then announces publicly that he cannot prove you didn’t rob the bank, so you are neither criminally accused nor “exonerated.” 

The burden of proof has now been shifted to you to disprove the negative. How would you feel? You’ve been maligned with the taint of criminality and no longer enjoy the presumption of innocence. 

This is the equivalent of what Mueller did to Trump. The special counsel created the impression that Trump might have engaged in wrongdoing because he could not prove otherwise. 

The consequential injustice and harm that inevitably follows is what happens when we reverse the burden of proof and abandon the innocence standard that are revered in a democracy as fundamental rights. 

Yet, this is what Mueller did. He improvised a new standard that applies only to Trump —presumption of guilt. Under this novel “guilty until proven innocent” paradigm, it is up to the president to prove the allegations are false. 

Attorney General Barr recognized that Mueller had mangled the legal process, describing his statement as “actually a very strange statement.”

Barr told Congress that he was forced to correct Mueller’s mistake. “I used the proper standard,” said Barr. “We are not in the business of proving someone did not violate the law –I found that whole passage very bizarre,” he added.       

Our system of justice in America is designed to protect the innocent. This is why there are laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury testimony and even more expansive rules at the Justice Department that prohibit prosecutors from disclosing derogatory information about uncharged individuals. It is, in a word, unfair to smear people who have not been charged with anything.

Mueller was well aware of this. In the “introduction” to Volume II on obstruction, he recited the duty of prosecutors to be fair by refraining from comment. In the case of a sitting president, wrote Mueller, “The stigma and opprobrium could imperil the President’s ability to govern.”

Ironically, the special counsel then proceeded to ignore his own warning.  He produced his own “dossier” on Trump that was filled with suspicions of wrongdoing. 


He refused to make a decision to charge the president in a court of law but was more than willing to indict him in the court of public opinion. 

His report was a non-indictment indictment. It was calumny masquerading as a report. 


Parts of this column are adapted from the author’s forthcoming book “Witch Hunt: The Plot to Destroy Trump and Undo His Election (Broadside Books, October 1, 2019).”


  1. I simply want to tell you that I am just new to weblog and really loved this web site. Almost certainly I’m going to bookmark your website . You certainly come with fantastic articles and reviews. Thanks for sharing with us your website.

  2. hello there and thank you for your info – I have certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise some technical points using this site, since I experienced to reload the website a lot of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your high quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for a lot more of your respective intriguing content. Make sure you update this again soon..

  3. I’m really impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a great blog like this one nowadays..

  4. Hiya, I’m really glad I’ve found this information. Today bloggers publish only about gossips and net and this is actually annoying. A good blog with interesting content, that is what I need. Thank you for keeping this web-site, I will be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can’t find it.

  5. Wow! This can be one particular of the most helpful blogs We’ve ever arrive across on this subject. Basically Fantastic. I’m also an expert in this topic therefore I can understand your hard work.

  6. Hi there this is kind of of off topic but I was wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding knowledge so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  7. Thank you for the sensible critique. Me & my neighbor were just preparing to do some research about this. We got a grab a book from our area library but I think I learned more from this post. I am very glad to see such wonderful information being shared freely out there.

  8. You can certainly see your expertise in the work you write. The world hopes for even more passionate writers like you who aren’t afraid to say how they believe. Always go after your heart.

  9. After examine a couple of of the blog posts on your website now, and I truly like your manner of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website record and will likely be checking back soon. Pls check out my website online as effectively and let me know what you think.

  10. Great goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you’re just too wonderful. I actually like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it wise. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a wonderful website.

  11. Hey are using WordPress for your blog platform? I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to get started and set up my own. Do you need any html coding expertise to make your own blog? Any help would be really appreciated!

  12. I believe that avoiding packaged foods could be the first step to lose weight. They could taste fine, but prepared foods contain very little nutritional value, making you consume more only to have enough power to get throughout the day. When you are constantly having these foods, transitioning to whole grains and other complex carbohydrates will help you to have more vitality while consuming less. Thanks alot : ) for your blog post.

  13. I’ve been surfing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It’s pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all web owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the internet will be much more useful than ever before.

  14. It is my belief that mesothelioma can be the most fatal cancer. It has unusual properties. The more I really look at it the more I am sure it does not behave like a real solid tissues cancer. When mesothelioma is really a rogue virus-like infection, then there is the prospects for developing a vaccine along with offering vaccination for asbestos uncovered people who are at high risk connected with developing foreseeable future asbestos connected malignancies. Thanks for expressing your ideas about this important health issue.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here