The Most Damning Thing Said In Today's Mueller Show
Posted by TheRealBill 4 years, 10 months ago to Politics
So I've watched and review much of the dog and pony show that was the "hearing" of Mueller today. One thing stands out more than anything is, frankly, the most damning thing to be said at it in my view.
The setup: Mueller is asked by John Ratcliffe to identify what language sets a legal standard that the Special Prosecutor is to exonerate, or conclusively prove the innocence of the target of an investigator. He stammered about stalling, but of course none is coming, a point Ratcliffe immediately makes. He then asks for a single instance where the Justice Department anywhere has done this. Of course, Mueller can't identify any. Then Ratcliffe drives it home:
“Respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it — even sitting presidents.”
He isn't wrong, either, and Mueller knows it. Everyone in the room knows it. But then Mueller shot his own foot off objecting with:
"This is a unique situation"
And there you have it. In Mueller's mind/view Trump specifically is not to be given the bedrock of American jurisprudence: the presumption of innocence.
Domestic terrorists, spies, rapists, mass-murders, serial killers, President Nixon, President Clinton, President Obama, Candidate Hillary Clinton - they all get the legal presumption of innocence. But Mueller thinks Trump does not. That is as close to an admission of bias and invalidation of his fitness for that job as it gets without an explicit "yes, I want to pin anything I can on him because I don't like him and will break any rule needed to get either" statement.
His relationship with Comey? Pfftt, nothing burger. Did he vote for Clinton? Don't care, not dispositive. Did he hate Trump? Still don't care, not dispositive. But this? It isn't everyday you have a special prosecutor testify in an open and live committee hearing that he thinks he can ignore presumption of innocence for the subject of his investigation.
The setup: Mueller is asked by John Ratcliffe to identify what language sets a legal standard that the Special Prosecutor is to exonerate, or conclusively prove the innocence of the target of an investigator. He stammered about stalling, but of course none is coming, a point Ratcliffe immediately makes. He then asks for a single instance where the Justice Department anywhere has done this. Of course, Mueller can't identify any. Then Ratcliffe drives it home:
“Respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it — even sitting presidents.”
He isn't wrong, either, and Mueller knows it. Everyone in the room knows it. But then Mueller shot his own foot off objecting with:
"This is a unique situation"
And there you have it. In Mueller's mind/view Trump specifically is not to be given the bedrock of American jurisprudence: the presumption of innocence.
Domestic terrorists, spies, rapists, mass-murders, serial killers, President Nixon, President Clinton, President Obama, Candidate Hillary Clinton - they all get the legal presumption of innocence. But Mueller thinks Trump does not. That is as close to an admission of bias and invalidation of his fitness for that job as it gets without an explicit "yes, I want to pin anything I can on him because I don't like him and will break any rule needed to get either" statement.
His relationship with Comey? Pfftt, nothing burger. Did he vote for Clinton? Don't care, not dispositive. Did he hate Trump? Still don't care, not dispositive. But this? It isn't everyday you have a special prosecutor testify in an open and live committee hearing that he thinks he can ignore presumption of innocence for the subject of his investigation.
What I saw from Mueller was someone who was out of his league. He refused to answer basic questions which if this were a standard prosecution would have had him thrown out by his own client for failing to properly represent them and - quite frankly - a failure to do his job. Every time he was asked about the exculpatory evidence such as the true start of the FBI investigation or the Steele dossiere - the foundation for his entire case - he said that it was out of his purview. Ridiculous! And this guy's supposed to be a top-notch attorney?
Now I'd like to take some of that cake and shove it down the throat of those nasty Dims.
Prosecute with evidence or say nothing. Period. That's it.
guilty unless we assume him so”
He is not the first sitting POTUS to be investigated. Nor is he the first to face impeachment. He isn’t even the first to face investigation and impeachment over obstruction of justice.
But the makeup of their team certainly seems to be unique. Their insistence of vagueness while lacking evidence ToS likewise ... well it unique. King George was doing that before the American Revolution. It is why those related things are in the constitution.
Oh yeah.
That is the cover for the left to establish an impeachable cause.
"Use any means" - they say, to get him out of office.
The "Unique situation" would serve well for turning the law upside down.