Posted on 07/24/2019 7:01:41 AM PDT by knighthawk
Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe blasted former Special Counsel Robert Mueller Wednesday for his report findings on alleged obstruction of justice by President Trump, claiming the section violated Justice Department policy and the “bedrock principle of our justice system.”
Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked Mueller during congressional testimony to identify which Justice Department policy “set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined.” The lawmaker was raising concern about Mueller's report saying that while the probe did not establish Trump committed a crime, it also did not exonerate him.
“Can you give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Thank you Mr.Ratcliffe.
I still remember Bar’s confirmation hearing, when he said RM3 would never be involved in a witch Hunt...
If Bar doesn’t move to charge RM3 with violations of Trump’s constitutional rights, what’s the point of any of this?
Hey Bar, get off your fat backside and start charging the special counsel members with conspiracy!!!!
Jim Jordan just gave Mueller the best interrogation I’ve seen so far.
I saw a bit of Mueller today; he is nervous, poorly spoken, contradicts himself and brought his boy from the staff, Zeberle, at the last minute to support him. This tottering old fool did everything but drool. Won’t answer questions about the Steele dossier, Mifsud, any Democrat collusion with the Russians - in other words, he’s an old fool that is being used by the Dems. The nursing home beckons, Mr. Mueller.
Mueller knows all Demorats questions and have his answers ready.
Ratcliffe is factually wrong. A trial establishes guilt or innocence. This was not a trial, it was an investigation. The investigation concluded that while there was evidence of collusion that it did not form the basis for a convincing case of it. No charges have been brought so far and no trial (i.e. impeachment) has occurred, so the President’s guilt or evidence has not been ruled upon by an appropriate body.
I can’t believe someone that stupid is in congress, but there you go.
Someone this stupid? Are you talking about Mueller or did you mean to say that Mueller’s excuse is that he is simply senile?
“I can’t believe someone that stupid is in congress, but there you go.” Uh, hello. There’s plenty of stoopid to go around in CONgress. LOL! And, yes, it is hard to believe, but here we are.
Mueller is full of mulescheissen.
Any Democrat watching these hearings hoping for blood will be extremely disappointed and angry. And any Democrat thinking of walking away from the Democrats will be more emboldened than ever to do so.
Radcliff is right. Innocence is presumed, hense the verdict guilty or not guilty.
More taxpayer $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ spent on this GIANT FAIL of a RAT Swamp scam.
I caught his portion before heading out on the day. He impressed me. And he is correct. The obstruction language was written specifically by the deep staters to give Congress and the media something to continue the witch hunt. It is unprecedented to report on no proof of innocence.
Stupid!! go look up the definition of stupid and it says Congress. Did you wake up this morning and forgot about the Four Monkeys of the democratic party running from microphone to camera to anywhere to speak and show their ignorance?
In the context of the political persecution the jackass waged against so many, Ratcliffe is not wrong to demand an unambiguous “exoneration”.
NO, IT DOES NOT. A trial can determine guilt. Only. Period. Stop. End sentence. Guilty, or not, are the ONLY declarations. Ever.
Innocence is always presumed, and cannot determined (impossible to prove a negative), nor should it ever have to be.
(And even a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean one didn't do it... see OJ Simpson... it merely means that guilt was not sufficiently proven in this court by this prosecutor under these circumstances. That's all.)
...while there was evidence of collusion...
If someone says I attacked them and show a cut on their arm, both their accusation and the cut are, in fact, evidence against me.
But If I can show evidence that I was nowhere near them and even offer “security camera footage” of them outside a 7-11 cutting themself, my evidence will trump their evidence.
Evidence is not proof and, in fact, can be complete bull excrement. But it is still “evidence”.
With all due respect, you are incorrect. Mr. Ratcliffe was referring to DOJ policies and procedures which the special counsel egregiously failed to follow and thus violated. This has nothing to do with who has or doesn’t have the right to establish guilt or innocence. You need to listen to Mr. Ratcliffe’s argument again. You didn’t get it the first time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.