Posted on 07/24/2019 9:27:12 AM PDT by jazusamo
On Wednesday morning, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee about his 448-page report. It was released to the public in April after a two-year-long investigation.
Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe didn't waste any time with his brief, five minute questioning period and ripped Mueller for making up a standard of guilt only applicable to President Trump.
"Now your report, and today you said that, 'All times the Special Counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles,' so which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?" Ratcliffe said.
"Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Let me make it easier, can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?" he continued.
"I cannot but this is a unique situation," Mueller responded.
Rep. John Ratcliffe Shreds Volume II Of Robert Mueller's Report
The Democrats have committed an egregious error putting Mueller under oath and in front of a Television audience...to be cross examined.
In other words, Mueller acted corruptly - as did his entire investigation
Exactly!
I was unaware the the scales of justice are tipped one way or the other for unique situations.
Everyone is supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
That is what Mueller’s history has been. That is making up standards of guilt for his victims throughout his career.
“Now your report, and today you said that, ‘All times the Special Counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles,’ so which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe said.
Wow, can you imagine that standard being applied to the Clintons or Obama?
self ping
LOL Nunes just said in his opening statement in the ‘hearings’ “Welcome everyone, and welcome to the last gasps of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory”
Absolutely perfect opening statement lol
Yep, Nunes is still ripping the Rats on the collusion, their collusion. LOL!
I strongly object to John Ratliff’s use of the word “respectfully”.
This is what totalitarian police states do: “frame” a political opponent for a bogus crime and force him to prove his innocence.
He’s a really smart man- and dryly funny too- hope he gives em hell
“Mueller is thinking and operating at three-quarters speed. “
more like half-speed at best ... he looks and acts like a sick, old, confused man who’s heavily medicated ...
I enjoyed that so much, I watched twice.
Ask MuleFace this question...”IF the OLC did NOT exist, WHAT CHARGE would you bring against him”? DETAILS, PLEASE!
Mueller should have shown up in a bathrobe!
"The Special Counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the Special Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It’s not in any of the documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the Special Counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC opinions, it’s not in the Justice manual, and it’s not in the principles of federal prosecution," Ratcliffe continued. "Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully, 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 a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone, everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never ever need to conclusively determine it."
Thanks jazusamo. Mueller should hang.
Jim Jordan’s is well worth a watch as well.
“”why he threw the book at anyone associated with Trump but nothing happened to Christopher Steele.””
I listened and he acted as if the name Christopher Steele was an unknown entity to him - never heard of him...didn’t investigate anything to do with that person. I screamed, “a first grader could tell you what you needed to know about Christopher Steele”
I wonder if he was just acting stupid and deaf just to kill time and get the hell out of there. Or like my brother just told me, when you put a liar on the spot they stutter and play stupid, that’s what I believe what’s going on with him
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.