The Most Damning Thing Said In Today's Mueller Show

Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 1 week ago to Politics
19 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 10 months, 1 week ago
    One thing I learned yesterday, we have a couple or three really smart Texas Boys on our side! And God Bless Jim Jordan, Trey Goudy, and all they others working for us. Louis Gomert gave 'em a hard time too.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ gharkness 10 months ago
    PERFECT assessment. I think most of us had already known/reached the same conclusion up until the last two paragraphs. But those two paragraphs put the icing on the cake, cut it, and served it on a plate.

    Now I'd like to take some of that cake and shove it down the throat of those nasty Dims.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 months ago
    The telling thing about this is that the entire purpose behind social media (and the MSM) has been to destroy that bedrock principle of presumption of innocence. The Kavanaugh hearing made that all too plain, and the "metoo" movement has adopted the attitude of guilt by accusation as well. We have always been proud of the fact our nation was founded on the rule of law, and the deep state has aimed its most brutal attacks at that keystone of the republic, pushing ever steadily toward arbitrary justice determined by an elite.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 months ago
    From watching Carlson, Hannity and Pirro on Fox last week, me dino repeatedly heard what a prosecutor's job is at least in the USA~~
    Prosecute with evidence or say nothing. Period. That's it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ TheRogue1000 10 months ago
    I believe the poor bastard was caught between a rock and a hard place, one of his own making. It was also obvious that he was "on" something...or hadn't had any sleep for days. Completely and totally unprepared for the session.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 months ago
    I think the other one which was particularly telling was when Mueller couldn't even recite the findings of the paper he supposedly oversaw and authored. His own findings equated collusion and conspiracy legally and he was corrected - pointedly - on this.

    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ exceller 10 months ago
    "This is a unique situation"

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 months ago
      The unique situation: “ we can’t prove him
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 months ago
    why beat a dead horse. we all know the dems use anythng they can to get rid of Trump. We should move on- maybe do the same thing to the democrats.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo