If we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business
Rosenstein, a few weeks back ...
"The guidance I always gave my prosecutors and the agents that I worked with during my tenure on the front lines of law enforcement was: If we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens," Rosenstein said during a question and answer session at a Washington think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/rosenstein-seems-lower-hopes-what-public-will-see-mueller-report-n975816
Now ... whatever was sent to the Congress, is inevitably would involve 'allegations', would it not?
If I'm the Dems, and I don't get the real, whole report, and I mean FAST, I'm hauling in Rosenstein while he'll still at the DoJ, and asking him EXACTLY how far does he imagine the DoJ's imprimatur to make decisions like this extends?
Does it mean ... We can imply to Congress in a public letter that basically 'no evidence of collusion was found', even though, in reality, DoJ has actually decided that 'not enough evidence to convict' ... was found ... and you're just not telling Congress, because, after all, you have 'no business' if you're not taking it to court?
Trying to find a positive in this freakin' morass ...
