Yet again, Mitt Romney self-servingly misses the entire point.
Jeez, I’m almost nostalgic for Orrin Hatch. Naaah. At least Romney seems to avoid the cameras, whereas Hatch was almost as nauseatingly omnipresent as McConnell and Graham.
That said, there has been little to indicate `any ideological difference at all between Romney and Hatch. Romney has voted with the President almost all of the time and has generally remained silent regarding any condemnation of Trump.
I will only grudgingly give Romney the benefit of the doubt that he is in fact able to read, because he said that he did read the Mueller report. Still, he persists in occasionally trying to make himself look like some sort of maverick.
His latest example is his statement on Twitter today …
Hooray. Romney Twittered that he is “sickened at the extent of the pervasiveness of the dishonesty and misdirection”. Seriously Mitt, did you really need the Mueller report to open your eyes to that?
But he just can’t help himself. He also says that it is good news that Trump was “not charged … with having obstructed justice”.
That is where my question of Romney’s ability to read comes into play. He obviously either did not read any of the Mueller report or he read some of it and relied upon William Barr and Fox News to fill him in on the rest of it.
First, according to that maddening DOJ directive, which Mueller was reluctantly following, Mueller COULD NOT charge Trump with obstruction of justice.
Second, Mueller says specifically in his report that “actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.”
Third, the report concludes “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
The Mueller report then goes on to identify ten, specific instances where Trump may have obstructed justice. The report also states in multiple instances that “substantial evidence” exists that obstruction may have occurred.