Liberals need some Mueller-Time logic lessons

Bradley Moss, Esquire, had a typical reaction to Mueller’s statement on indicting former presidents:

But watch the video of the exchange in question.

What Mueller was saying was that a president’s immunity to indictment does not extend after he leaves office. Thus, the president could not be charged while in office, but he could be charged with a crime when he leaves office. This isn’t saying he’s found probable cause against Trump, or that Trump ought to be charged with a crime once he leaves office.

Then there was the question of why Mueller didn’t recommend charges against Trump for obstruction. Did that mean there was no probable cause, or that Trump was exonerated? Mueller clarified that he never made such a judgment because of legal guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president.

At one point, Mueller repeated that in response to a question from Rep. Ted Lieu. That exchange is captured in a melodramatic tweet from the very enthusiastic impeachment advocate Seth Abramson:

Other liberal commentators also saw this as huge:

They assume Mueller is agreeing that the OLC guidance is the only reason Mueller didn’t recommend charges. But that doesn’t follow logically. Instead, Mueller is saying that the OLC guidance is the operative reason he didn’t recommend charges.

Think of it as a flowchart, see below.

(Tim Carney/Washington Examiner)

Or, as analogy, if you asked me why I won’t vote for Elizabeth Warren, I may say “because she’s pro-choice.” That doesn’t mean I would vote for Warren were she pro-life, it’s that being pro-life is the gateway. If you don’t go through that gateway, I don’t consider you.